il^ 


M 


.fi"-^' 


J 


I\    V 


VV 


K- 


^ 

I 

# 

(0 

% 

j 

^ 

*^ 

Ic 

£9         h> 

Q- 

V 

1 

«?5          ^ 

"o 

1 

^ 

3j 

1 

^            S 

2 

I 
1 

«^            O 

e>o 

! 

•S5            tj 

< 

m    n 

1 

iz; 

E 

« 

S! 

-1 

«i                M 

(0 

'!^ 

,§ 

•ss        p; 

CO 

s 

^ 

-^        Ph 

t-T 

-5 

'-h 

i^ 

-^^ 

S 

Ct 

•^ 

*a 

% 

^ 

^ 

^ 

CL 

1 

sec. 


•HtKEBREW.-R  JEWISri;  an  r^  CHr:S~IAN  C^TU?^.CH  the  SAME] 

ILLUSTPwATED  AND  APPL:ED, 


I>!  PP.OOF  OF  THE   DLTV 


INFANT-BAPTISM; 

AND  THE  MOST  WEIGHTY  AND  PLAUSIBLE 
OEJECTIONS  ANSWERED  : 


THREE  SERMONS. 


BY  GILES  H/COWLES,  a.  m. 

fASTOK,  OF  THE  FIRST  CdURCH     IS    SRiSTOi,  (cCN.) 


Puilished  at    tht  Request   of  the  Hearers. 


TO  WHICH  13    ADDED, 


APPENDIX. 

4 
♦  / 

ON  tHE 

MODE   OF   BAPTIS?.!,  .      ^ 


sYjONATfI.V:J  MILLER,  a.  rt. 

PASTOR  OF    THE     CHURCH     IN    WEST  BRITAIN. 


^NEWARK— 

PRINTED  r.'{  JOHN  V/ALI,I7,  OPPOSit  :    yKt  cov?.T-;;  TU  ;!;. 

l2,02. 


THE  fubflance  of  thefe  difoouifes  was  deliveiecl  in  twc 
Sermons. — But  as  they  have  been  confidei  ably  enlarged,  they 
are  now  divided  into  three. 


I.  Contains  the  illuflration,  and  arguments 
in  proof  of  the  doctrine,  that  the  Jewifh 
and  Chriflian  Churches  are  the  fame, 

II.  Anfvvers  the  objeclion  againiT:  this  doc-- 
trine. 

III.  Applies  the  fubjed  in  Proof  of  the  duty 
of  Infant-Baptifm  and  anfwers  objections 
againfl:  tliis  pradice. 


S  E  R  M  ON     I. 


R^JMANS  xl.  17,  i8»  19,  and  2  3. 
Ar-^  if  fome  of  the  branches  hi  broken  #,  and  thou,  being  .'  nvu.: 
'dlJe  tree  Lrt  graffed  in  among  them,  and  'tvith  them  par- 
t-k'fl  oftherootandfatnefsofthe  olive-tree;  boajl  not  again Jr 
thebravcf^es  :  But  ifthouboaj},  thox  beareji  not  the  root,  but 
the  ro'A  the'>.  Thou -Jji It  fay  then,  The  branches  ivere  br>skcn 
off,  that  ' I  may  be  graf^d  in.  Well,  becaufe  of  unbelief  tkcy _ 
^jjere  broken  off,  and  thou  Jlandeft  by  faith. 

THE- olive    is  3  very  beautiful  and  ufeful  tree,   yieldiij^g 
oil,    which,    hj   the   inhabitants  of   the '  eaitern   coun- 
tries, was   muchuled  in  fed,  and  in.fupplying    their  lamps. 
Olive  yards  therefore   were  much  cultivated   m  the    land  ot 
CaiiaanJ     Olive  leaves  or  boughs  alfo  were   conlidered  as  em- 
blems of  peace   among   tlie   ancients.     God  therefore    repre- 
feats  his  church  or   people  as  an  ohve^tree.     Ihus,   [pea»cu^.g 
of  the  Hebr.w  church,  Jer.   xi.  16,  he    fays,  "For  the  Lord 
called    thy   name,    a    green    olive-tree,   fa.r   Yi"^:fufj 
frviiL."     Again,  Hofea.xiv.  6,  he   fays  of  IlraeU      K-.s   blan- 
ches  (hall   fpread  and  his  beauty  Ihali  be  as   the  ol-'^^rf^^^' 
God's  church  or  people  may  widi  great  propriety  be    liccened 
to  a  fair,  fruitful  olive-tree  ;  becaufe  when  they  aft  in  charac^ 
ter,and  bring  forth  the  fruits  of  religion,   they  are    beaut.tu 
i-i  the  view  Sf  all  holy  beings,   and  feek    the    «  things    that 
make  for  peace,"   as   the   olive  is  an  emblem  of  peace— and 
becaufe   tiiey  are   ufeful   by  their  pious,  exemplary  lives,  and 
fhiae  as  lights  in  the  world  ;  as  the  olive  by    its  oil  fupphes 
mankind  with  light. 

When  therefore  the  apoftle  here  fpeaks  or  the  olive-tree, 
from  which  the  Jews  were  broken  off  by  unbelief,  and  into 
which  the  believing  Gentiles  were  grafied  by  t^th  ;  he  evi- 
dently mulf  have  reference  to  the  JewlQi  church  which  was 
thus  called  an  olive-tree,  "  fair  and  of  goodly  fruit.  ihe 
Tewilh  charch  then  is  here  reprefented  by  an  o hve-tree, 
fnringinc.  from  Abraham  or  Chria  as  the  root.     The   bran 


(4; 

dies  are  the  members,  and  thofe  v.'hich  were  broken  cff,  de- 
noie  the  unbelieving  Jews  ;  v/ho  were  cut  off  trcm  thei? 
vliihlc  Handing  in  this  church  becauie  of  their  unbelief,  or 
rejedioa  cf  Chrift  ^nd  his  goipel.  The  wild  olive-tree  re- 
prefents  the  Gentiles  ;  who  when  they  believed,  were  gralred 
into  this  good  olive-ltree  among  the  branches  which  remain- 
ed, and  with  them  partook  of  the  root  and  fatnefs  of  the 
olive-tree,  or  of  the  fpecial  blefiings,  privileges,  and  promi- 
fes,  pertaining  to  the  Jevvifli  church.  Since  therefore  the 
believing  Gentiles  are  graff:d  into  the  fame  olive-t:es  or 
church,  from  \yhich  the  unbelieving  Jews  were  broken  oft ; 
it  is  manifelt,  that  the  Jewiilx  and  Chriftian  church  are  ef- 
fcntially  the  Hime  ;  or  in  other  words,  that  the  Chrift:r.a 
church  is  but  the  continuance  and  extenfion  of  the  Jewifh. 
To  illuPirate,  prove,  and  apply  this  fi-ntinient,  will  be  the 
objcit  of  the  enfulng  diicourfes. 
In  doing  this  it  is  propofed  ', 

I.  To    illuitrate  and   prove  the  doflrine,  that   the  Jnvii'li 
and  Chriflian •church  arc  eifentialiy  ths  fame. 

II.  To  anfwer  objcCiions  againft  the  doclrine. 

III.  To   make   application   of  the  fubjecT:  in  proof  of  tbe 
duty  of  Infant  Baptifm. 

I.   It  is  propofeJ  to  illuftrate  and  prove  the  doftrine,  that 

the  Jewifii  and  Chrifiian  church  are   eiTcnti^illy    the    fame. 

The  term  church  is  fornetimes  ufed  to  ilgnify  ail,  who  are 
or  ever  lliall  be  re«-iewed  and  faved  ;  including  all  the  "  fpir- 
itsofj Lid  men  made  parfeft"  in  Ijeaven,  and  all  real  Chrif- 
tianson  earth.  This  is  Chriil's  fpiritual  houfe,  built  up  of 
living  flones,  and  is  what  h  termed  the  univerfal,  invifible 
cliurch.  Ail  of  every  a2;e,  country,  and  denorninaiion, 
•v^ho  have  been  icncwed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  nsne  but 
li:ch,  arc  members  of  this  invinble  church. 

The  woi  d  church  is  alfo  ufed  to  denote  all  in  every  part 
of  theworld  who  profcfs  and  appear  to  be  the  people  of  God. 
This  is  what  is  called  the  univerf-J  vifible  church  ;  and  ic 
includes  ail  who  are  profelfedly  i>r  apparently  in  covenant 
With  God.  In  this  fenfc,  tlic  Ifraelites,  under  the  ancient 
difpenj'auon,  were  his  viable  church.  Accordingly  it  is  faid, 
Aa?  vii;  38,  that  Mofes  "was  in  the  cJrarch  in  the  wilder- 
nefs.*'  And  profelTing  Chriftians  conRirute  God's  vifible 
church  under  the  preftnt  difpenfation.  All  particular  chur- 
ches, of  every  country  and  denomination,  who,  as  to  tiim- 
tials,  are  eilablifhed,  according  to  the  conftitution  and  rules 
of  God's  word,  are  but  parts  tf  ChriiTs  great  vifible   church 


(  5  > 

or    family  here  on  earth  ;  however  they   rr.ay   diiTci-   \n  rlceSy 
modes,  orthina;s  not  fundamental, 

V/hen  therefore  it  is  faid  that  the  Chriftian  and  Jewidi 
church  are  e.Tentially  the  fame;  the  meaning  is,  that  ths 
Jews  w?re  required  to  profefs,  and  adually  did  profefs,  to 
be  the  real  people  of  God  ;  or  in  other  words  they  p.cfelTed 
eOenilally  the  fi:me  religion— the  fame  love  and  obedience, 
v.'hich  the  members  of  "Chria's  church  nPw  do.  Thofc  of 
them  who  were  really  what  they  profefled  fco  be,  were  as  n.uch 
entitled  to  falvation,  as  fmceic  profeffors  now  are.  .The 
Jews  continued  to  be  the  vifible  church  or  prof  effing  people 
cfGod,  and  fome  of  them  were  fo  in  reality,  until  the  com^ 
ing  and  death  of  the  Saviour.  Then  thofe,  v-ho  rejefted 
his  goirei,  w.sre  broken  otF  from  their  vifible  funding  la  that 
chuich"  becaufe  of  their  unbelief.  But  thofe  Jews,  who, 
3ik.,-  the  apofiles  and  others,  profeffed  cordially  to  receive  -ue 
IsIeilLih,  flill  continued  to  be  God's  vifible  church.  And 
the  believing  Gentiles  were  graifed  in  among  ihem  into^^the 
old  olive-tree  or  Jewilh  church  ;  and  fo  both  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles were  united  in  one  body,  called  the  Chiitlian  church. 
AH  the  difference  therefore  betv.'een  God's  church,  under  the 
ancient  and  Chrillian  difpenfation,  confuts  in  cxteinul  ntcs, 
forms,  and  modes  of  inliruc^ion,  aiiling  wholly  irom  the 
diiFerent  circumflances,  In  which  they  were  placed.  God 
h\v  fit,  before  the  coming  of  Chrift,  to  reveal  but  obfcurely 
thofe  divine  truths,  which  related  to  the  atonement  and  me- 
diation of  the  Saviour,  and  to  other  important  doctrines 
ofrelicdon  ;  and  to  inftruct  his  church  in  ;he(e  truths  by  types 
:ind  emblems,  wi-ich  fhadowed  forth  «  good  things  to  come.'* 
But  fmce  the  coming  and  death  of  ChriH,  thele  truth  are 
now  more  clearly  revealed  ;  and  therefore  thole  rites 
and  inllitutions,  vvhich  t}-pified  thefe,  are  abclifncd  ;  and 
other  ordinances,  more  eafy  and  f:mple,  are  introduced  m- 
their  itead.  To  fuppofs  then  that  God's  church  under  the 
ancient  difpenfation  was  efT^ntially  different  from  what  it 
is  under  the  Chriitiin,  becanfe  it  had  lefs  light,  and  was  mere 
obfcurely  inftrufted  in  dii-ine  truth,  is  as  unreafonable,  as  it 
v/ould  be  to  fuppofe,  that  the  man  is  not  the  fame  perion 
he  was  v.-hen  a  child  :  becaufe  he  then  had  lefs  knowledge, 
and  was  governed  and  inftru<fted  in  a  very  different  manner, 
from  what  he  now  is-  The  Jewilh  church,  according  ^to 
the  apoillc's  reprefentatTon,  Gal.  iv.  was  like  a  child  under 
tutors  and  governors,  and  the  Chrillian  like  a  fon  and  hs.r  ixl 
adult  age.  '^  This  Ihuws,  that  the  Chriftian  church  is  elfendal- 


Jy  the  larae  as  the  Jewifh,  being  the  continuation  of  the  famcr 
church  under  a  different  difpeniation,  or  under  different  modes 
and  circumrtances  ;  juft  as  the  fon,  vhen  at  adult  age,  is  the 
lame  perfon,  he  was  when  a  minor,  but  only  is  in  a  different 
fituation. 

Farther,  the  Hebrew  church  was  the  fame  as  the  Chriftian, 
in  this  lenfe,  that  it  was  the  church  of  Chrlft.  It  was  Chrift, 
or  the  fecond  perfon  of  the  Trinity,  who  from  time  to  tim.e 
appeared  to  Abraham  as  the  Lord  his  God,  and  made  that 
convcr.ant  with  him,  which  was  the  foundation  of  the  Hebrew 
church.  Chrift:  was  alfo  the  Lord  Cod  of  Abraham,  Ifaac 
and  Jacob,  who  appeared  to  Mofes  in  the  bufii,  brought  the 
Iliaeiites  cut  of  Egypt,  made  the  covenant  with  them  at 
Mount  Sin;ii,  and  manifefted  himfelf  in  the  tabernacle.  For 
David,  in  Pfdlm.  Ixviii.  1 8,  fpeaking  of  the  God  ^Aho  went 
before  his  people  in  the  wildernefs,  fays  *'  Thou  haft  afcended 
on  high,  thou  haft  led  captivity  captive,'' &c.  And  the  apof- 
tle  Eph.  iv.  8,  exprcfsly  applies  this  to  Chrift  ;  which  plainly 
fliows  thathe  was  the  Lord  God  of  Abraham  &  of  the  Hebrew 
church — that  he  was  the  angel  of  "  the  church  in  the  wilder- 
n.eis."  Ads  vii.  38.  The  Hebrew  church  tb.erefore  was  the 
church  of  Chrift,  as  much  as  the  Chriftian  church  now  is  ; 
and  in  this  refpect  they  are  the  fame,  as  they  ftand  in  the  fame 
relation  to  the  Mediator,  he  being  the  head  of  beth.  Confe- 
quently  fpeaking  or  thinking  lightly  of  the  Hebrew  church  is 
evidently  defpifing  the  church  of  Chrift. 

Having  made  fome  obfervations  to  illuftrate  the  dcflrine, 
that  the  Hebrew  and  Chriftian  churches  are  the  fame  ;  it  is 
propofcd  to  produce  feme  more  diredt  arguments  in  proof  of 
this  fentiment. 

1.  It  m.ay  be  conclufively  argued  from  the  confideration, 
that  they  are  both  founded  on  the  covenant  of  grace.  As 
many  appear  to  have  wrong  or  cbnfufed  ideas  ijf  this  covenant, 
it  may  be  necefiary  briefly  to  ftate  and  explain  it.  The  pro- 
per meiining  of  the  term  covenant  is  an  agreement  between 
parties  on  certain  conditions  ;  or  it  is  fome  conditional  propo- 
ial  made  by  tene  party  to  another.  A^nd  an  afTent  to  this  propo- 
ial  by  tLe  other  party  is  ratifying  the  covenant.  Grace  is  the 
exercife  of  mercy  or  gocdneis  towards  the  unworthy  or  ill- 
deierving. 

By  the  covenant  of  grace  then  is  meant  God's  oiTering  his 
fdv»r  or  eternal  life  to  unworthy  fmners,  through  Chrift, 
■upon  conditioE  of  repentance  ai:id  faiih.  The  condition  on 
liian's  part  is  a  faith,  which  will  e>frels  iifelf  in    cordial   love 


(7) 

and  obedience.     And  the  promife  on  God's   part  to  thofe, 
v-ho  comply  with  this  condition,  is  his  favor   and  life  eternal. 
Whenever  therefore  a  perfon  exercifes  love  iind   fiiith  towards 
God,  he  cordially  affents  to  the  covenant  of  grace,  or  enters  into 
k  ;  and  all  who  profefs  real  religion  do  profefledly  affent  to  this 
covenant,  and  are  vifibly  in  it.     It  is  important,  that  we  dif- 
tin^uifh  between  this  covenant  of  grace   and    the  covenant 
of  ^redemption,     which      many      confufedl/     bknd    .toge- 
ther.    "  The   covenant   of    redemption  fubfifts  between  the 
■three  perfons  in  the  facred  Trinity,  containing  their    propofals 
and  engagements,  ref;)eaing  the  redemption  and   falvation  el- 
fallen    man."     God  the   Father    propofes    and   promifes,  to 
God  the  Son,  th  t,  if  he  will  undertake  the    work  of  redemp- 
tion, he  (hall  fee  of  the  travail    of  his  foul    and   be  fatisfied. 
The  Son  undertakes,  and  the  Holy  Ghott  acquiefces,   and    eu- 
gages  to  aiTul  in  carrying  this  plan  into  execution-by  renewing 
the  hearts  of  thofe,  who  are  given  to  Chrift.     The  covenant  of 
redemption  then  fubfiifs  between  the  three  perfons  in  the  Trin- 
ity, and  was  eternal.     But  the  covenant  of  grace  as  has  been 
fhown  is  between  God  and  fallen  man  ;  and  none  are  brought , 
into  this  covenant,  until  they  do  in  Ibme  way  affent  to  its  con- 
ditions, which  are  repentance,  faith,  and  love. 
This  covenant  of  grace  was  revealed  in  fome  degree  to  Adam, 
Enoch,  Noah,  and  the  other  pious  patriarchs,  who    lived  be- 
fore Abraham  ;  and  it  was  by  a   cordial    compliance   with  its 
terms,  that  they  obtained  falvation.     It  was  more  fully  revea-  _ 
led  to  Abraham  in  that  covenant,  which  God  made  v^rith  him, 
andof  which  circumcifion  was    the   feal  or  token.     For  a  lit- 
tle   attention  to    the   fubjefl   will    plainly    evince,     that   the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  which  was   the   foundation  of  the   He- 
brew church,  was  in  fubftance  the  covenant   of  grace.     When 
God  defigned,  in  a  more  public    manner  than  before,  to  con- 
ftitute  a  vifible  charch,  he  called  Abraham   out  from  his  na- 
tive country  and  the  idolatrous  world.      And  after     Abraham 
by  complying  with  the   divine  directions,    had  manifefted   his 
fiitii  and    obedience,   God  propofed   publicly  to  enter    into  a 
covenant  with  him,  promifed  him  peculiar  flivors  cn^  certain 
conditions,  and  appointed  a  vifible  token  or  feal  of  ratiti  cation. 
A.braham  afiented  to  the  conditions,  applied  the   token  accor- 
ding to  the  diredion,  and  thus   vifibly   entered  into  covsnant 
tvith  God.     Now  if  it  can  be  Ihown,  that  this  covenant  i^equi- 
red  faith  or  real  religion,  as  its  condition,  and  prcmifed  God's 
favor  or  eternal  life  to  a  compliance  with  this   conditica;   i: 


(8) 

i»Ill  be  iindemably  evident,  that  k  was    efTentiaiiy  the     tovo 
nant  of  grace. 

Th-it  faith  or  real  religivon  was  the  condition  of  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant,  is  iT5ar.ife;l  fronj  various  conliderations.  It 
is  raanifirft  from  the  v^j  face  of  the  covenant,  recorded 
Gen.  xvii. — God  fays  to  AbrahaiK,  vcrfs  I  and  2,  "  I  iiin  the 
Almighty  God  ;  walk  before  me  and  be  ihou  peried  [or 
.upri^h':  and  lincercj  as  the  word  often  means]  ;  And  I  will 
make  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee."  l;>!ow  it  is  evident 
from  this  accoant,  that  the  condition  of  this  covenant,  requi- 
red en  Abraham's  part,  was  to  "  walk  before  God  and  be 
perfeifi"  or  upright ;  and  this  certainly  implies  real  religion. 
Are  tl)ere  any  Chriftians,  who  now  do  more  than  this,  which 
was  required  of  Abraham  as  the  condition  of  this  covenant  ?  If 
not,  it  is  evident,  that  real  religion  was  the  condition  of  the 
Abiahiimic  covenant. 

Further  it  is  maaifeft  from  what  the  apoftle  fays  of  circum- 
cifion,  that  this  covenant  was  the  covenant  of  grace.  It  is 
certain,  that  circunrtcificn  '.vas  the  token  or  feal  of  the  covenant 
God  made  vvith  Abraham.  "Ye  fliall  circumcife  the  flcfti  of 
your  foredun,  and  it  Ihall  be  a  toktn  of  the  covenant  betwixt 
me  and  you."  Gen,  xvii.  1 1.  But  the  apoftie  declares,  Rom, 
iv,  II,  ihat  Abraham  "  received  the  fign  of  circumcifion,  a 
feal  of  the  righteoufncfs  of  the  fai':h,  which  he  had  yet  being 
unclrcumcifed  "  Here  it  iDay  be  obferved,  thst  by  the  phrafe 
"  rightecufnefs  of  faith"  in  fcripture  is  me?nt  judification  by 
faith  in  Chr;!l. 

Circuir.cifion,  being  called  "a  feal  of  the  righteoufi-efs  of 
the  failh,"  &c.  (hows,  that  it  was  a  feal  or  token  rn  God's 
part,  tliat  he  would  pardcm  and  juRify  Abraham,  and  all 
other  true  believers  on  ccccunt  of  this  faiih.  But  this  is  the 
very  fame  thing,  promifsd  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  which  is, 
that  God  will  jutlify  all,  who  cordially  believe  in  the  Saviour. 
Since  therefore  circumcifion,  the  token  of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  v/as  '*  a  feal  of  the  righteoufnefs  of  the  faith"  or  a 
token,  that  the  faith  of  believers  fhonld  be  counted  unto  them 
fir>r  righteoufhefs  or  juftification  ;  it  is  ceicain,  that  this  v/as 
the  covenant  of  gract. 

Furtlier,  fince'ihe  circumcifion,  v/hich  Abrnbam  received, 
is  faid  to  be  "  a  feal  of  the  rightecuiuefrf  of  the  fai'h  v^hich 
h  had''  &c.  it  fliows,  that  it  was  a  token  of  faith  on  his  part, 
as  well  as  a  token  on  God's  part,  \\vi.X.  thofe  v>'ho  had  this 
faith  {liouid  be  juftificd.  lut  if  this  covenant,  (.f  which  cir- 
euniciiioa  v/as  the  token  or  leal,  did   sot   rcqiurc  irtilh  ;  how 


(9) 

could  his  circumcifing  himfelf  and  houfehold  In  compliance 
with  its  requirennent  be  any  feal  or  manifeftation  of  his  faith? 
For  his  receiving  or  applying  the  token  cf  the  covenant  could 
not  be  a  f;al  or  manlfeftaticn  of  any  thing  more  than  the 
covenant  required.  If  therefore,  faith  v.'as  not  the  condition 
of  this  covenant  ;  then  Abraham's  receiving  the  fign  of  it  could 
be  no  feal  or  token  of  his  faith.  But  fince  the  apoftle  calls 
his  circumcifion,  "  a  feal  cf  the  faith  nvhich  he  haJ,"  Sec.  it  is 
certain,  that  faith  was  the  condition  of  the  Abrahamic"  cove- 
nant. Accordingly  it  is  fald  verfe  13,  "  For  the  promife 
[w^hich  was  made  to  Abraham  in  this  covenant]  that  he  fliouhi 
be  the  heir  of  the  v.'orld,  [or  the  father  cf  many  nations  or  qf 
all  the  believing  world]  was  not  to  Abraham,  or  to  his  feed 
through  the  law,  but  through  the  righteoufnefs  of  faith.  And 
the  faith  here  fpoken  of  by  the  apoftle,  and  of  which  circum- 
cifion was  a  feal,  was  that  faith,  which  was  accounted  unto 
Abraham  for  righteoufnefs,  and  made  him  the  father  c£ 
"  all  them  that  believe."  Is  it  not  therefore  abundantly 
manifeft,  that  faving  or  jaftifying  faith  was  the  condition  cf 
the  Abrahamic  covenant  ? 

This  is  further  evident  from  the  conHderation,  that  w:Lr~ 
liif  debarred  perfons  from  the  bleflings,  promifcd  in  this 
covenant.  One  of  tlaefe  promifed  bleGTings,  was  the  land  of 
Canaan.  But  the  apoale  fpeaking  of  the  Ifraclitcs,  "whofc 
carcafes  fell  in  the  wildernefs"  fays,  They  could  not  enter 
into  the  land  of  promife    *'  becauie  of  unbelief." 

If  therefore,  they  could  not  cbtain  the  blefTings,  prcmifed 
in  this  covenant  becaufe  of  unbelief,  it  is  manifeft,  that  faith 
was  the  condition  of  the  covenant ;  ctherv.ife,  how  could 
unbelief  cut  off  from  its  bleffings  ?  ITiis  truth  is  alfo  evident 
from  the  v.-ords  of  the  apoftle  Rom.  xi.  20.  The  Ab:a- 
liamic  covenant  all  allow  was  the  foundation  of  the  Jewiih. 
church.  But  the  apoftle  there  declares  that  the  Jevs  were 
broken  off  from  this  church  or  oUve-tree  "  becaufe  of  unbe- 
lief ;"  which  proves  iiicontrovertibly,  that  faitii  vras  the 
condition  cf  the  covenant,  on  which  tki:t  church  vvas  founded. 
Since  therefore,  the  condition  of  cne  Abrahamic  covenant 
was  faith  or  real  rehgion,  itmuftbe  eflentially  the  covmant 
of  grace. 

This  is  ftill  further  evident  from  what  is  promifed  in  ti;i'> 
covenant.  For  among  other  favors  God  pronifes  Abrahviii, 
"  to  be  a  God  unto  him  and  to  his  fsed  aft-ir  him."  .Gen. 
ivii.  7.  lu  this  covenant  then  God  promifes  ic  give  hira- 
i^Mi.  -f   and  \^,  there  any  tlving  greater  piojiTiiffJ   to  b(J.T»A'f?<^.  lu 


(10) 

ia-2  covenant  oi'  grace  ?  "  It  is  remarl^able,  that  the  hrr.v 
"  phrHfeoiOgy  is  prellrved  In  the  new  Tedarnent,  v.'here  the 
«  bleffings  of  the  covenant  of  grace  are  expreffed."  Thus 
the  principal  promif^  in  what  is  called  the  '*  new  covenant," 
Heb.  viii.  lo.  is,  "  I  will  be  onto  then)  a  God,  and  they  fl'iiiH 
b->j  to  me  a  p-ople."  "  And  all  the  blefrednefs  and  glor^^ 
••  which  will  finally  be  conferred  on  believers  in  heaven  is 
"  t' U5  exprelff.d.  «' Ke  that  overccrceth  fliall  inherit  all 
"  thin^o ;  -Av^d  I  •will  be  his  God."  Yea,  God  cannot  prornifc 
real  Chriilians  any  thing  greater  or  more  defirable  than 
liivifdftix  that  he  will  be  their  God.  P:%  therefore  God,  in 
the  Abrahamic  covenant,  prornifed  to  give  Himfelf,  which 
is  ihegreateit  of  all  Ipiritual  bleiling'',  and  the  fame  that  is 
pToniiled  to  believers  in  the  new  Teftaiuent  ;  and  as  the  cor.- 
d-"i,ion  cf  this  covenant  was  faith  or  real  religion;  it  is  evi- 
dent beyond  all  rational  coiitradidion,  that  it  was  a  difpen- 
f'aticn  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 

Accordingly  the  apofiie  fpeaking  of  the  promife  made  to 
Abraham,  exprefcly  declares,  Rom.  iv.  i6.  "  Therefore  it  is 
of  failh,  that  it  might  be  by  grace."  In  Gal.  iii.  14.  he  alfo 
fpeaks  cf  the  bleilings  of  Abraham  coming  on  the  Gentiles 
through  Jeius  Chriil.  But  if  the  bleffings  pvomifed  to  Abra- 
harn  in  tiie  covenant  which  God  nnadc  v.'ith  him,  are  the 
fair.e,  which  now  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jefus  Chriil  j 
then  this  covenant  mull  he  the  covenant  of  grace. 

Again,  GaL  iii.  29.  it  is  faid,  **  If  ye  be  Chrift's,  then  are 
ye  Abraham's  feed,  and  h'jirs  according  to  the  promife." 
tlere  it  may  be  obl'erved,  that  it  was  by  this  covenant,  of 
which  circnmcifion  WftS  the  i'eal,  that  Abraham  was  confti- 
tared  the  father  of  many  nations,  or  of  them  that  beheve.— • 
For  the  apoille  ciprcfsly  declares,  ihat  he  received  this,  "  feal 
of  ihc  rightebuinels  of  faiih,  chat  he  might  be  the  father  of 
all  diem  that  believe."  It  is  therefore  by  this  covenant,  that 
behe vers  become  the  feed  of  Abrjiham,  and  heirs  according 
to  the  promife.  But  if  this  covenant  was  not  the  covenant 
of  grace,  and  did  nd'tpromiie  ffiiritual  bleffings  ;  how  could 
it  conRiluce  believers  Abraham's  feed,  and  he'rs  of  the  blef- 
fiogs  which  it  piomifed.  For  all  Gentile  believers  certainly 
do  not  inherit  the  laud  of  Canaan  and  other  temporal  blel"-- 
fint;s  hfre  promifed  to  Abraham.  They  cannot  then  in  any 
fcale  be  the  heirs  of  ihe  proujiie  of  this  covenant,  unlefs  ir 
prouiiied  fpiritual  bleflini^s. 

Since  th..rei()re,  Chrilli.ins  become  Abrahan.'s  feed  by  this 
coi'cnaac,  ;u:d  ait  hciis  of  iis  blc(iing>- iiccuiding  to   the    pro- 


c_^2 

mife,  that  God  would  be  a  God  unto  him,  and  to  his  fisd  ; 
i:  is  manifell  that  this  was  efTentiaily  the  fame  covenant  of 
grace,  in  which  all  Chrilrians  are  now  inttrefted.  All  vho 
were  p^ofdhdlj  in  this  covenant,' were  profeiledly  in  the  co^ 
venant  of  grace.  Is  it  not  ftranpe,  that  anj,  who  attsuuvel/ 
confider  the  fubjeft,  can,  in  dircO  oppofuion  to  all  thefe  plain 
proofs  from  the  holy  fcriptures,  deny,  as  many  do,  that  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  was  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  promi- 
fedfpiritual  bleffings  ?  As  therefoie,  the  Abrahawic  covenant, 
on  which  the  Hebrew  church  was  founded,  was  the  covenant 
ofgrace,  and  as  all  allow,  that  the  covenant  of  grace  h  tiie 
foundation  of  the  Chriltiun  church;  it  ii  manifeft,  that 
they  are  efieniially  the  lame. 

2.  Another  argument  in  proof  of  this  dodlrine  is,  that  the 
fame  qualiSrations  were  required  for  membcrlhip  in  the^He- 
brew,  as  zre  now  required  in  the  Chriftian  church.  That 
right  affedions  of  heart  towards  God,  or  faith  and  a  holy 
obedience,  are  the  qualifications,  which  God  n,ow  requires 
for  memberfhip  in  the  Chriftian  church,  is  genei  aliy  allowed. 
And  that  ihefe  were  required  in  the  members  of  the  Hebrew 
church,  is  certain  from  the  fcriptures.  Thus  when  the 
church  wasfirftfet  upor  organifsdin  the  perfon  and  family 
of  Abraham  j  the  '  qualihcatir.n  required  of  him  was,  to 
«  walk  before  God,  and  be  perfed"  or  upright,  which,  as 
before  (hewn,  implies  real  religion.  And  his  circumcifmg 
himfelf  and  family,  v;as  a  vifible  token  or  profcffion  of  his 
faith  and  obedience.  Now  if  God  required  laith  or  real  re- 
ligion, as  the  condition  of  this  covenant,  which  he  made  \^  ith 
Abraham,  as  the  father  of  the  Hebrew  church,  and  on  v/hich 
this  church  was  founded  ;  then  it  is  certain,  that  this  fame 
condition  or  qualincatiou  was  required  of  all,  who  entered 
into  this  covenant,  and  became  members  of  this  church. 
For  God  faid  to  Abraham,  "  Thou  fualt  keep  my  covenant 
therefore,  thou,  and  thy  feed  after  thee  in  t^eir  generations," 
which  thews,  that  the  covenant  was  the  fame,  in  its  condi- 
tions or  requirements,  both  to  Abraham,  and  tn  all  his  poi- 
terity,  who  entered  into  it  in  their  fucceeding  generations. 

Farther,  circumcifion  was  the  known,  Handing  token  of 
the  Abrahamic  covenant,  which  has  been  Ibewn  to  be  the  cO'. 
venant  of  grace.  The  token  of  a  covenant  is  fom.ething, 
which  denotes  an  aifcnt  to  it,  and  is  a  ratification  ci  it. 
When  therefore  any  perfon  applied  this  kncwfi,  Jlatidtng  to- 
ken  of  God's  covenant  to  himielf  or  children,  he  did  by  this 
ttama<aicn  profefs or  engage  lo  comply  v.ith  its  conditions; 


^    12    } 

as  much  as  a  perfon  now  does,  when  he  bews  hisaHent  to  t^c 
avoids  of  a  covenant.  As  therefore,  all  the  members  of  the 
Hebrew  church  were  acquired  to  apply  this  token  of  the  cd- 
Tenant  to  their  children  ;  it  is  manlfeit,  that  they  were  re- 
quired to  exercil'e  that  faving  or  jnftir)ing  faith,  of  vhich 
circumcifion  was  the  token.  For  certainly  God  did  not  re- 
quire them  to  apply  this  token  in  a  hypocritical  manner. 
Thele  considerations  plainly  evince  that  true  faith  was  le- 
quired  by  God  as  the  condition  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
ar,d  of  an  approved  (landing  in  the  ancient  church.  Accor- 
dingly the  apoftle  declares,  that  the  Jews  were  broken  ofT 
from  that  church  by  unbelief,  and  that  believing-  Genlilts 
were  graffed  in,  and  flocd  by  faith  ;  which  (hews  beyond  all 
reafonable  difpute  that  faith  ^vas  required  as  a  term  cf  an 
approved  Handing  in  the  Jewifh,  as  well  as  in  the  Chiiftian 
church  ;  and  that  therefore  the  qualifications  of  memberfhip 
were  the  fame  in  both  churches. 

Again,  God  inade  a  covenant  with  the  Hebrew  church  cr 
people  at  Mount- Sinai,  in  which  he  promifed  peculiar  bleffings 
on  cei  tain  conditions.  To  this  they  profeffedly  gave  tlieir 
affent,  and  thus  entered  into  covenant  Vv'ith  God.  And  this 
covenant  was  the  conditution  of  the  Jewifh  church  until  the 
death  of  Chrift.  If  therel'oie,  it  can  b/ fliewn,  .that  the  con- 
dition of  this  covenant,  was  real  religion  and  holinefs  of 
heart  ;  it  v.'ill  be  manifell,  that  this  was  the  qualification  of 
church  memberfliip — 'Or  was  required  of,  ard  prcfeiied  by 
the  members  of  the  Jewifli  church. 

When  God  had  brought  them  out  of  Egypt  to  Mccr.t- 
Sinai,  he  faid  unto  them,  Exod.  xix,  5,  "l\ow  theiefcre  if 
ye  will  obey  my  voice  indeed,  and  keep  my  covenant,  then 
iliall  ye  be  a  peculiar  treafure  unto  me  above  all  people." — 
This  Ihows,  that  the  condition  on  their  part  was  to  obey  his 
■voice  and  keep  his  covenant.  God  then  proceeded  in  tlie 
Xi:. — xxiii.  chapters  10  declare  'o  them  the  com.mands  and 
ftatutes,  which  conflituted  the  covenant  that  they  v.ere  to 
keep.  Among  ihefe  were  the  ten  commandments  or  moral 
law.,  And  the  fum  of  thefe  as  explained  by  cur  Saviour,  is 
to  love  God  with  all  the  heart,  foul  and  mind,  ar.d  cur  neigh - 
houvs  as  o-urfelves.  As  llierefore  this  covenant,  included  the  ten 
coirm/andments  or  moral  law,  which  requires  us  to  icve  God 
with  all  the  heart  and  our  neighbour  as  ourlelvcs,  it  certainly 
required  real  religion  or  holinefs  of  heart.  This  cannot  be 
denied  without  contradicting  our  Saviour's  ophnatinn,  and 
afier ting,  that  the  moral  law  docs  not  rccuire  houn-^fs  of  i.rar:.  ^ 


And  as  th2  Hebrew  church  did  promifvi  to  obey  and  keep  thiJ 
rovcfianc  ;  fo  ic  is  evident,  that  they  did  profels  real  rehgion. 
For  iSloles  wrote  all  the  words  of  the  Lord.  "  And  he  took 
the  book  of  ih.i  covenant,  [containing  the  ten  c-jmmands  and 
other  (latutes  God  had  given]  and  read  in  the  audience  of  the 
people  :  x\nd  they  faid,  all  that  the  Lord  hath  fald  will  we  do, 
and'  be  obedient."  Then  farther  to  ratify  the  folemn  covenant 
^between  God  and  the  people,  "  Alofes  took  the  blood  and 
fpriakled  it  on  the  people,  and  faid.  Behold  the  blood  o(  the 
covea:\nt,  which  the  Lord  hath  made  with  you  concerning  all 
th;fe  words."  Exod,  xxiv.  7,  8.  This  (hows  that  leal  religion 
was  b:)th  required  of,  and  profeiTed  by  the  Hebrtnxi  church- 
That  true  holinefs  was  required  of  this  church,  is  further  evi- 
dent from  Levic.  i:ix.  2.  God,  being  about  to  enjoin  a  nutn- 
bii-  of  religious  and  moral  inllitutions  upon  his  church,  intro- 
duced thsm  with  thefe  words,  «  Ye  (hall  be  holy:  Foi  1  the 
Lord  yor  God  am  holy  ;"  fhewing,  that  the  fame  moral  ho- 
linefs  was  required  of  them,  which  condituted  the  diwne  cha- 
racter. i\ter  therefore  qi'.otes  the  fame  command,  and  ad- 
dreite::  it  to  the  Chriitian  church,  i  Pet.  i-  16.  *'  Becaufe  it  is 
writtc;-!.  Be  ye  holy,  for  I  am  holy."  This  plainly  teaches, 
that  the  fame  moral  holinefs  was  required  of  the  Hebrewj  as 
of  the  Chrilliau  church.  How  then  can  any  imagine,  thac 
nodiino-  but  a  ceremonial  or  typocal  holinefs  was  required  of 
the  Hebrew  church  ? 

Further,  that  God  did  require  real  religion  or  light  affiflions 
of  heart,  as  the  condition  of  that  covenant,  which  he  made  with 
the  Hebrew  churcii  or  people,  is  abundantly  manifeft:  from 
many  paff.iges  in  Deut.  where  Mofus  rehearfed  to  the  people 
the  commands  or  requiiltions  of  this  covenant.  Thus  it  is  faid. 
Deut.  vi.  3,  5.  "  Hear  therefore,  O  Ifrael,  and  obferve  to  do  \\-> 
that  it  may  be  well  with  thee,  and  that  ye  may  iccreafe 
mightily,  as  the  Lord  God  cf  thy  feathers  hath  promifed  thee 
in  the  land  that  fiowcth  with  milk  and  honey.  And  thou 
fhalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thine  heart  and  with  all 
thy  foul,"  <Scc.  Here  we  fee  that  one  requirement  of  this  cove- 
nant, and  a  condition,  on  wjdch  temporal  bleffings  in  Canaan 
were  prornilfd,  was,  that  they  fliould  Icve  God  with  all  tlieir 
heart  and  foul.  And  is  anything  more  than  this  now  requi- 
red of  the  members  of  the  Chrillian  church  ?  So  chap.  x.  12. 
"And  now  Ifrael  what  doth  the  Lord  thy  God  require  of  thee, 
but  ta  fear  the  Lord  thy  God,  to  walk  in  his  v/ays,  and  to  love 
and  liirve  him  nith  all  thine  heart  and  with  all  thy  foul." 
Ch.ip, 'xi,  13  a'ld' ij-  '' .Ard  :r  (hrill  come    to  pafs,   if  ye    vviJ! 


C  H  ) 

Ix-^itkcn  diligerielf  n^xo  my  commandments— to  lore  tiie  Lord 
7oar  God,  and  to  ferve  him  with  all  your  heart  and  foul ;  that 
i  will  give  you  .he  rain  of  your  land  in  due  feafon,"  &c.  which 
teaches,  as  before  ohferved,  that  loving  and  ferving  God  with 
all  the  heart,  or  real- religion*  was  the  condition,  on  which 
«ven  temporal  favors  were  promifed  to  the  Hebrew  church  or 
people.  The  fame  idea  is  clearly  taught  in  the  zzd  verfe  of 
iliis  chapter,  '*  For  if  ye  will  diligently  keep  all  thefe  com- 
laandments  which  I  command  you  to  love  the  Lord  ycur 
God,  to  walk  in  his  ways — Then  will  the  Lord  drive  out  all 
«l!iefe  nations  from  before  you."  Every  p>acefrom  the  wilder- 
mefs,  and  Lebanon,  from  the  river  Euphrates,  even  unto  the 
wttermolt  fea,  Ihall  our  coaft  be.  Then  ihall  no  man  be  able 
fy  tland  befor**  you."  Here  loving  God,  and  keeping  his 
commandments  is  the  condition,  on  which  God  promifes  t» 
|Tvethem  the  pcfitffion  of  Canaan.  They  had  therefore  n» 
tfiivenant  title  to  tlie  land  of  promife  without  love  to  God  or 
ireal  religion.  Agreeably  to  this,  God  faid,  Judges  ii.  20,  21, 
**  Becaufe  this  people  have  tranfgreiTed  my  covenant,  which  I 
commanded  their  fathers,  and  have  rvot  hearkened  unto  mj 
Toi'ce  ;  I  will  not  henceforth  drive  out  any  from  before  them 
cf  the  nations,  which  Jofnua  left?"  luch  words  plainly  Ihcw, 
aLat  the  poffeffion  of  Canaan  was  promifed  them  on  condition 
■sf  keeping  God's  covenant,  given  by  Mofes  :  vhich,  as  has 
Sstcn  already  (hewn,  required  real  religion,  or  fupreme  love  to 
God. 

So  it  was  commanded  Joftiua,  that  he  (hould  obferve  to  do 
sccording  to  all  the  law,  which  Mofes  commanded,  and  that 
le  ihouid  do  according  to  all  that  is  written  therein  ;  for  then 
sJiou  ihait  make  thy  way  proiperous,  and  fhalt  have  good  fuc- 
cefs."  Jolhua  i.  7,  8.  Here  alfo  fuccefs  in  taking  poffef- 
^on  of  the  land  of  Canaan  was  pron?ifed  Joftiua  on  the  con- 
C-tion  that  he  would  obferve  the  law  of  Mofcs,  which  required 
feve  to  God  with  all  the  heart  and  foul.  Ele  therefore,  in  a 
iolemn  charge  to  the  Reubenites,  Gadites  and  half  the  tribes  of 
Mana.Tah,  when  they  were  returning  to  the  land  of  their  pof- 
/cfTionjfaid,  "  take  diligent  heed  to  do  the  commandment  and 
law,  which  Mofes,  the  iervant  of  the  Lord  charged  you,  to  love 
ihe  Lord  your  God,  to  walk  in  all  his  ways,  and  to  ferve  him 
with  all  your  heart  and  foul."  Jofhua  xxii.  5.  Do  not  thefe 
words  teach  in  the  cleareft  manner,  that  God,  in  the  law  or 
tovenant  which  he  gave  by  Mofes,  required  fupreme  love, 
or  holinefs  of  heart,  ..  s  its  conditon  ? 

Again,  Deuu  xxx.  3,  5,  10.     Mofss  by   direaion  of.  Jeho- 


(  »5  ) 

v-'h,  promlfed,  tha^  God  would  turn  the  captivity  of  his  pjopl^ 
and  brins  them  into  the  land,  which  their  fathers  poffeffcd, 
ani  multiply  them,  &c.  "  If  thou  ihalt  hearken  unto  the  voice 
cf  the  Lord  thy  God  to  keep  his  ccnimandmenti  and  ftatutes, 
tvhich  are  written  in  this  book  of  the  law,  and  ii  thou  turn  uii« 
to  the  i  ord  thy  God  with  all  thine  heart  and  fonh  Ihis 
rafFaee  ckarly  proves,  that  God  in  his  covenant  with  that  peo- 
ple, conuined  in  the  book  of  the  law,  required  them  to  love 
hirn  with  all  the  heart,  and  that  this  was  the  conditon,  oa 
which  he  promiled  to  grant  them,  even  temporal  bleffings  and 
deliverances.  .  .     ^    i         j        "ti. 

The  requirements  of  this  covenant,  which  God  made  wita 
the  Ifraelites  and  what  was  p.-ofelfed  by  them,  are  very   clear- 
Iv  exprefTed  chap.  xxvi.  i6,  17,  18,  19-  "^'^s  day   the   .Lord 
thy  God  h  tth  commanded  thee  to  do  thefe  ftatutes  and  judge- 
m^nts  :    i'hou  (halt  therefore  keep  and  do  them  with  all  thine 
heart,  and  with  all  thy  foul."     This  is  what   God    reqmred  of 
his  ancient  church  ;  and  does  he  now  require  more  of  the  LhrU- 
tian  church  than  to  keep  his  commands  with  all    their   h^^t  - 
The  ne^t    verfe   expreffes    what  they  promifed    or    profelied. 
«'  Thou  halt  avouched  [or  profeffed]  the  Lord  this  day  to  be  thy 
God,  and  to  walk  in  his  ways,  and  to    keep  his   ftatutes,   and 
commandments,  and  to  hearken  to  his  voice."     And  does  any 
'  Chrillian  church  now  profefs  or  promlfe  more  than  this  ?  And 
i.rconftqa-nce  of  this  their  profcffion  it  isfaiJ,  "  And  the  Lord 
hath  avouched  thee  this  day  to   be  his    peculiar   people,  as  he 
hath  promifed  thee  :  And  to  make  thee  high  above  all  nations, 
in  praiic  and  in  name,  and  in  honor,  tkat  thou  mayeft  be  a  holy 
people  unto  the  Lord  thy  God."     V\  hat  then  can  be  more 
evident,  than  that  real  religion  was   required   of,  and   protef- 
fed  bv  God's  ancient  church,  and   that  it  was   required   ot 
?hem'in    that  covenant  which  was   the  conftitution   of  that 
church ;  , 

This  is  confirmed  beyond  all  rational  difpute  by  what  took 
place  in  ihe  days  of  Jofiah.  The  laws  and  commands,  which 
were  delivered  by  God  10  his  people  in  the  wildernefs,  and 
rdiearfed  by  Mofes  in  Deuteronomy,  were  written  in  a  bock> 
called  the  book  of  the  law,  and  the  book  of  the  covenant  j 
becaufe  it  contained  the  requilitions  and  promifes  cf  the  cove- 
jiaat,  which  God  made  with  his  peopk.  This  book  was  found  in. 
the  houfc  of  the  Lord  in  the  days  of  Jofiah,  and  he  aifembied 
the  people  of  Judah  to  renew  covenant  with  the  Lord,  2 
Kings,  xxiii.  2,  5.  **  And  he  read  in  their  ears  all  the  wordv 
of  ths  bock  of  the   covenant.      And   the  kiao-  made  a  c^ve- 


r  i; 


nuTit  before  the  Lord,  to  \valk  after  the  LerJ,  snd  to  keep 
his  cointriaiids,  and  tcfi-imoniei;,  and  ftatuces  wnih  all  their 
heart  and  foal,  to  perform  all  the  vords  of  this  covenant 
that  were  vritten  ia  this  book: :  And  all  the  people  flood  to 
rhe  covenant."  Heie  we  may  notice,  that  when  they  renev.-- 
ed  covenant,  they  promifed  "  to  v/alk  after  the  Lord,  and  to 
heep  his  commandments  with  all  their  heart  and  foul,"  and 
that  they  did  this  *'  to  perform  the  words  of  tliis  covenant.'' 
This  clearly  ftevfs,  that  this  covenant  required  the  heart  or 
real  religion.  This  is  further  evident  from  the  25th  verfe 
of  tliis  chapter.  There  i:  is  fuid  of  Jofiah,  "And  like  unto 
him  was  there  no  king  before  him,  that  turned  to  the  Lord 
with  all  his  heart  and  with  all  iiis  foul,  according  to  all  thi 
laws  of  Mofes."  Hero  his  tuiiiing  to  the  Lord  with  all  his 
heart  and  foul  is  declared  to  be  according  to  the  Mofaic  la'A 
or  covenant,  teaching,  that  this  was  its  requirement.  Ac- 
cordingly the  Ffaliiiill:  fpeaking  of  their  promifes,  fays, 
Pfalm  Ixxviii.  36,  37.  "  Nevcrthelefs  they  did  i^atter  him 
wliIi  their  mouth,  and  lied  unto  him  with  their  tongues. 
For  their  /jetiri  was  not  riglit  with  liim  ;"  ftiowing  that  they 
profelfed  to  have  their  heart  or  affedtions  right  vith  God  ; 
otherwife  they  would  not  have  been  guilty  of  lying  in  their 
profeffions,  becauie  their  heart  was  not  right. 

This  ft-ntiment  is  alfo  corroborated  by  the  words  of  thi 
apotlle,  Rom.  ii.  28,  29.  "  For  he  is  not  a  Jew,  who  is  one 
outwardly.  But  he  h  a  JeR",  Vvho  is  one  inwardly."  Thefe 
words  plainly  Ihow,  that  real  piety  was  required  cf,  and  pio- 
telTed  by  the  members  of  the  Jtwilh  church,  and  therefore 
none  were  reyl  Jews,  or  what  they  profeffed  to  be  ;  unlefs 
they  had  real  religion,  or  were  fo  inwardly.  For  if  true  pi- 
ety were  not  profefled  by  them  ;  how  could  it  be  faid,  that 
jirne  were  real  Jews,  who  were  rot  fo  inwardly  or  at  heart  ? 
If  mere  external  obedience  v.as  v.hat  God's  covenant  .  requi- 
red of  that  church,  as  fome  imagine  ;  then  .all  v.culd  have 
been  real  Jews  — or  what  they  profeifed,  who  were  fo  cuv- 
v\ a.'.dly,  or  yielded  an  extcrnid  obedience  ;  v.hlch  if,  ciredlly 
contrary  to  the  declaration  of  the  apoftle.  /•gieeabiy  to 
this,  Chrift  calls  Nathaniel  "an  Ifraelite  indeed,"  becanfe 
truly  pious.  Does  not  this  plainly  teach,  that  none  were 
Jfws  or  Ifraelites  indeed— were  what  iliey  prcfctled  and 
Were  required  to  be,  uuiefs  like  Nathaniel  they  pofieiFcd  'real 
pi-ty. 

Omitting  many  otlier  paiTages  which  might  be  r/.ent;cnec, 
js  it  not  abundentlv  evJd;nt, 'h:'.t   jeal  reli.cioi:    t;r  rieht    viki.- 


(17) 

tions  of  heart  were  as  really  required  of,  and  profeflTed  bf  the 
members  of  the  Jewifli,  as  of  the  Chriftian  church.  And  a$ 
the  fame  qualifications  were  required  by  God  for  memberftiip 
in  bodi  churches,  it  is  raanifsft,  they  are  one  and  the  fame 
church. 

Is  it  not  fnrprifint»,  that  any,  in  diretfl  contradl^flion  to  all 
thefe  plain  declarations  of  the  word  of  God,  can  imagine,  as 
the  Baptifts  generally  do,  that  God  did  not  require  real  reli- 
gion in  the  covenant,  which  he  made  with  his  ancient  f^eople^ 
and  that  they  might  according  to  God's  requirements  Ijecome 
members  of  his  church,  and  fo  perform  the  conditions  of  his 
covenant  as  to  be  entitled  to  its  promifes  without  any  reli- 
gion of  heart  ?  This  covenant  required  tkem  to  love  and 
ferve  God,  and  to  keep  his  commands  with  all  their  heart 
and  foul  ;  and  if  this  does  not  imply  real  religion,  what 
does  ?  Are  there  any  pafTages  in  the  bible,  which  more  clear- 
ly or  flrongly  express  true  piety  ?  God  fpeaking  of  his  co- 
venant, Pfalm  1.  1 6.  fays  to  the  wicked,  "What  haft  thou 
to  do— that  thou  (houldefl  take  my  covenaat  in  thy  mouth  ?" 
This  plainly  teaches,  that  the  wicked  had  no  right  to  take 
God's  covenant  into  their  mouth,  or  profefs  to  ad'ent  to  it  5 
and  that  confequently  this  covenant  required  real  holinefs  as 
its  condition.  For  if  it  did  not,  then  the  wicked  nn'ght  con- 
fiftently  enter  into  it — yea,  might  fulfil  all  its  conditions 
while  impenitent.  It  appears  therefore,  from  this  paflage, 
that  God  viewed  his  covenant  very  differently  from  what  they 
do,  who  fuppofe,  that  it  did  not  require  holinefs  of  heart, 
and  that  impenitent  fmners  might  confiftently  take  it  upon 
them,  and  even  comply  with  its  requifitions.  Befides,  if  it  did 
not  require  the  heart,  how  could  they  be  guilty  of  lying  and 
flattering  in  profeffing  to  comply  with  its  requirements,  be- 
caufe  their  hearts  were  not  right  ?  And  how  could  the  a[of- 
tle  declare,  that  he  was  not  a  Jew  who  was  one  outwardly,  if 
external  obedience  was  all  that  was  required  for  memberfhip 
in  the  Jewifh  church  ?  And  why  did  God  finally  break  off 
the  Jews  from  their  church-ftanding  "  becaufe  of  unbelief," 
if  faith  was  not  required  by  him,  as  the  term  of  memberfhip  ? 
Many  bewilder  themfelves  in  this  matter  by  looking  at 
the  praftico  of  the  Hebrew  church  rather  than  at  God's  re- 
quirements. They  fee,  that  the  Ifraelites  all  proftffedly  en- 
tered into  God's  covenant,  and  became  members  of  his 
church  ;  although  the  greater  part,  probably  had  no  real  re- 
ligion. Hence  they  conclude,  that  this  v/as  not  required  as  a 
qualification  for  covenaBting,  or  church-ftauding  under  th:u 
C 


( >8 ) 

difpenfation.  But  might  we  not  as  well  argue,  that  real  re- 
ligicn  is  not  reqaiied  as  a  qualification  for  memherlhtp  in  the 
Chrinian  church.;  bcxaufe  in  feme  ages  this  church  has  been 
very  corrupt,  and  bi^t  verf  few  of  its  niennbers  nianifeued 
any  true  piety  ?  But  thus  to  look  at  the  pradlice  of  the  church, 
inftead  of  the  divine  inftitution  or  requifitions,  leads  to  in- 
mimerahle  errors  and  miftakes.  If  we  would  difcover  the 
trath,  v/e  mufl  look  at  God's  requirements,  which  cannot  be 
in  the  lead  invalidated  by  the,  practice  of  a  church.  What- 
ever then  may  have  been  the  coridud  of  profeiTors  in  the 
Jewifh  or  Chriftian  church,  it  is  manifert,  that  God  has  always 
required  hollnefs  of  heart  Jis  the  term  of  covenanting  under 
both  difpenfat'ons.  And  from  rhe  famenefs  of  the  qu  alifica- 
tions  for  memberlliip  under  both  difpenfations  it  appears, 
that  Lhie  church  is  the  fame. 

Since  njany,who  allow,  that  real  holincfs  or  religion  is 
required  of  the  members  of  the  Chriftian  church,  very  ftrenu- 
oufly  denj,^,  that  it  was  required  in  God's  covenant  viiih  his 
ancient  church  ;  let  us  compare  the  terms  or  profefllon,  re- 
quired in  both  churches.  Under  the  new  Teilament  difpen- 
iation  after  Chrift  v/as  manifeiled  ia  the  flefh,  faith  in  him 
or  a  believing  in  him  with  all  llie  heart  was  required  as  a  term 
of  admifilon  into  the  Chi illian  church.  The  terms  required 
in  the  Abrahamic  and  Mofaic  covenants,  and  profefled  bv 
God's  ancient  church,  were  to  "  walk  before  God  and  be  per- 
fe«^l  (or  hncere) — ^^to  love  him,  walk  in  his  ways,  and  keep 
all  his  ccmmaudments  with  all  the  heart  and  foul!"  Now 
thefe  requirements  of  God's  covenant  with  the  Hebrew 
church,  are  certainly  quite  as  extenfive,  and  as  exprelfive  c  f 
real  holinefs  or  religion  ;  as  believing  in  Chrift  %vith  all  the 
lieart,  which  is  required  as  the  term  of  memherfnip  in  the 
Chriilian  church.  How  ilranee  then  that  any  can  fuppole, 
that  real  religion  was  not  as  much  required  in  God's  cove- 
rant  v.'ith  ihii  Hebiev/  church,  as  it  is  in  his  covenant  with 
the  Cbiiflian.? 

3.  The  rules  of  moral  conduit,  and  of  difcipllne  which 
God  enjoined  upon  the  Jewlfii  and  ChrilHan  churches  are  in 
many  refneils  very  fimilar  ;  and  this  is  another  evidence  cf 
their  being  elTentially  the  fame.  The  ctmmand  to  the  He- 
brew church  was  "  Thou  fiiak  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyfelf — 
thou  [halt  not  vex,  nor  cpprcfs  a  fiianger — thou  fhalt  love 
him  as  thyfelf.  li'thou  m^et  thy  enemy's  o;c  or  afs  going 
aftrav,  thou  fhalt  furely  bring  it  back'' — teaching  that  they 
ought  to  be  diipofeU  to  do  gccd  to  thtir  QV.-zvnica.      And   the 


Ci9) 

diredlions  to  the  members  of  the  Chriftian  church  ar?,  «'  Love 
(Jne  another— do  good  to  all,  as  yc  have  opporttinity-  Love 
your  enemies,  and  do  good  to  them  that  hate  you/'  Sac. 
God  in  his  laws  and  commandments  to  his  ancient  church 
ftriclly  forbade  adultery,  forr-ication,  fodomy,  idolatry,  uitch- 
craft,  theft,  lying,  falfehood,  fraud,  opprtffion,  prof^me  fwear^ 
ing,  revenge,  grudging,  and  other  firnilar  iminoralities,  fee 
Exod.  xxi.— xxiii.  chap,  and  Levit.  xix.  and  xx.  chap.  And 
thefe  fame  vices  are  exprefsly  forbidden  by  the  new  Tefta- 
ment  in  the  Chriiliarv  church.  The  direflions  concerning 
the  difcipline  in  the  ancient  church  were  «'  Thou  (Ivalt  not 
hate  thy  brother  ;  Thou  (halt  in  any  wife  rebuke  thy  neigh- 
bor [or  brother]  and  not  fufFer  fm  upon  him."  By  this 
command  they  were  obligated  to  rebuke  or  reprove  their 
neighbors,  whenever  they  fell  into  Cm,  and  thus  to  endeavor 
to  reclaim  them.  Agreeably  to  this,  Chrift's  command  to 
the  Chriilian  church  is,  *«  If  thy  brother  trefpafs^  againft  thee, 
[i.  e.  be  guilty  of  any  open  fin]  go  and  tell  him  his  fault," 
and  endeavor  to  reclainri  him.  And  if  the  offending  broiher 
repents,  and  makes  confcHlnn  and  fatisfadion  for  his  offence, 
he  is  to  be  forsivea  and  received  again  into  the  Chriftian 
church.  So  wlien  an  Ifraelite  tranlgrciTed  any  of  God's  com- 
mands, or  inixitutions,  moral  or  cerem.onial,  which  was  not 
punifliable  by  death,  he  was  commanded  to  bring  his  fm-of- 
ferin:' — to  lay  his  hand  on  the  head  of  it  as  a  token  of  con- 
feffion  and  repentance  ;  and  the  prieft  -was  to  make  an  atone- 
ment for  him  by  offering  it,  and  thus  he  was  to  be  forgiven. 
See  Levit.  iv.  v.  and  vi,  chap.  If  an  offender  in  the  Chrif- 
tian church  remains  obflinate  and  impenitent,  or  perfevercs 
in  his  fms  ;  he  is  to  be  ea":  off  and  excomm^inieated.  If  he 
will  not  hear  the  church  he  is  to  be  unto  you  a5  an  h-eathcn 
inan. — They  are  to  withdraw  from  every  one,  that  walketii 
diforderly,  and  purge  out  fiom  among  them  fiich  wicked 
perfons.  '  So  in  the  Hebrew  church,  "  The  foul  that  doth 
ouo-ht  prsfumptuoufly,  [which  doubtlefs  implies  all  obflinate 
perfeverance  in  difobedience  to,  or  th^  neglc6i:  of,  any  divine 
command,  as  well  as  more  grofs  heinous  fms]  the  fame  re- 
proached the  Lord  ;  and  that  foul  fhali  be  cut  oiF  from  his 
people.  Becaufe  he  hath  dcfpifed  the  word  of  the  Lord." 
Numb.  xiii.  30.  It  appears  then,  that  all  inimor'al  conduct 
and  tranfgreffions  of  God's  commands  were  matters  of  dif- 
ciphne  in  the  Hebrew,  as  weii  as  in  the  Chriftian  church. 
Since  therefore  the  rules  of  moral  conduit,  and  of  difcipline^ 
in  both  churches  were  fo  fimilar  in  many  refpeds,  it  ccrrcbo- 


(20) 

fates  the  evidence  already  exhibited,  that  thef   are  eirentiallr 
the  fame  church,  under  two  different  difpenfations. 

Had  therefore  the  requirements  of  God's  covenant  been 
attended  to  in  the  admiffion  of  perfons  into  the  Hebrew 
church,  and  had  the  difcipline  God  enjoined,  been  ftridly  ob- 
ferved,  that  church  would  have  been  as  vifibly  holy  or  fpirit- 
nal,  and  free  from  corruptions,  as  the  ChrilliaH  church  ever 
has  been.  The  reafon  then,  why  the  Hebrew  church  at 
times  became  fo  formal,  corrupt  and  degenerate,  was,  that 
thefe  rules  of  admiffion  and  difcipline  were  not  ftriclly  at- 
tended to.  God  therefore  fpeaking  of  the  corruption  and 
degeneracy  of  this  church,  fays  "Her  prieas  have  violated 
tny  law,  and  have  profaned  mine  holy  things:  They  have 
put  no  difference  between  the  holy  and  profane."  Ezek.  xxii. 
26.  And  it  is  owing  to  a  fimilar  negled  of  the  rules  of  ad- 
miffion and  difcipline,  that  Chriilian  churches  often  become 
Tery  corrupt.  ' 

4.  The  fcripture  gives  the  fame  charader  both  of  the 
Jewifh  and  Chriftian  churches,  which  fhews  them  to  be  the 
fame.  God  faid  to  the  Hebrew  church,  Exod.  xix.  5,  6. 
*'Nowtherefore,ifye  will  obey  my  voice  indeed,  and  keep 
my  covenant,  then  ye  fliall  be  a  peculiar  treafure  unto  me 
above  all  people-  And  ye  Ihall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of 
pnefts,  and  an  holy  nation."  And  in  Deuteronomy  it  is  faid, 
*•  The  Lord  hath  chofen  thee  to  be  a  peculiar  people  unto 
himfelf."  If  this  is  compared  with  the  defcription  given  of 
thcChriflian  church,  i  Pet.  ii.  9.  it  will  appear  to  be  almoft 
cxaftly  the  fame.  «  Ye  are  a  chofen  generation,  a  royal 
priellhood,  an  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people."  I'his  ehar- 
ader  of  the  Chriftian  church  was  evidently  quoted  from  that;, 
given  of  the  Hebrew,  and  is  eifentially  the  fame  ;  confequent- 
Ij  they  are  both  the  fame  churcli. 

Again,  God,  or  rather  Chrift(  who  in  the  fcripture  was  the 
God  of  Abraham  £nd  of  the  Hebrew  church)  was  repre- 
fented  as  the  huHjand  of  his  ancient  church  or  people,  and 
tbey  as  his  wife  or  fpoufe.  Thus  Jer.  iit.  14.  "Turn,  O 
backiliding  children,  faiih  the  Lord,  for  I  am  married  unto 
YOU."  Ahbchap.  xxxi.  32.  "  They  brake  my  covenant,  al- 
though I  was  an  hufband  unto  them."  Thus  Chriil  was 
reprefented  as  the  hufband  of  the  Hebrew  church,  and  they 
ashisfpcufe,  on  account  of  their  covenant  obligations  to  be 
his.  Agreeably  to  this,  the  Chriftian  church  in  t!  c  new 
Tellament  is   called,  "  the   bride,  the    Lambs   wife,"   and 


Jhrift  is  fald  to  be  the  head  of  the  church,  as   the  hufband  Is 
ihehead  of  the  wife. 

Since  therefore  the  Hebrew  and  Chrlftian  churches  are  both 
repreler.ted  in  a  marriage  relation  to  Chrift,  as  being  his 
fpoafe,  and  he  as  being  a  hulband  to  tiiem  j  it  is  a  proof,  that 
they  are  cne  and  the  fame. 

Chrift  alfo  is  filled  the  llaepherd  cf  his  ancient  church.— 
"  Give  eaij  O  fnepherd  of  Ilrael,  thou  that  leadeft  Jofeph 
hke  a  fleck."  Pfalrn  Ixxx.  i.  And  is  he  not  reprefented  as 
ftand'ng  in  the  fame  relation  to  the  Chriftian  church  ?  '*  I 
am  the  good  faepherd,  and  know  my  flieep."  If  then,  Chriil 
h  the  Ihepherd  of  both  the  Hebrew  and  Chriftian  churches, 
and  ihey  are  boih  his  flock  or  Iheep,  does  it  not  fhsw,  that 
they  are  eirmtially  the  fame  church  ? 

5.  That  the  Hebrew  and  Chriftian  church  is  the  fame, 
may  be  argued  from  the  conSderation,  that  the  facraments 
or  ordinances  of  the  church,  under  both  difpenfatioDS,  are 
finiilar  in  their  import  and  defign.  Thus  circumcifion  and 
baptifm,  and  the  pafTover,  and  the  Lord's  fupper,  aredefignei 
to  anfwer  the  fame  ends  in  the  church  under  diiSFerent  di£- 
penfations. 

ift.  Circumcifion  was  a  token  of  the  covenant  of  grace 
between  God  and  thofe  who  applied  this  token  to  theinfelves 
or  children,  as  has  been  already  fhown.  It  denoted,  that  they 
gave  thtir  affent  to  this  covenant,  and  thus  was  a  feal  or  token 
cf  their  faith.  Accordingly  the  apoftle  calls  it,  "  a  feal  oiT 
the  righteoufnefs  of  the  faiih  which  i^lbraham  had  being  yet 
uncircumcifed  ;"  (bowing,  that  he.  fail  believed,  and  then  cir- 
cumcifed  himklf  and  houfehold  in  token  of  his  faith.  So 
baptifm  novv'  is  a  token  of  faith  in  Chrift,  and  thus  a  feal  of 
the  covenant  of  grace.  For  Philip  told  the  eunuch,  that 
he  might  be  baptized,  if  he  believed  with  all  his  heart  ;  which 
plainly  fhows,  that  baptifm  is  a  tuken  of  faith,  M-hich  is  the 
ccndition  of  the  covenant  of  gi  ace  ;  and  thus  it  is  a  feal  of 
this  covenant  aad  a  token  of  affent  to  it.  When  therefore  a 
perfon  dedicates  himfelf  or  children  in  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tifm, it  is  a  token  of  his  faith,  and  fo  ®f  the  covenant  cf  grace 
betweea  God  and  him.  In  this  refped  circumcifion  and  bap- 
tifm appear  to  be  of  the  fame  import  and  defign. 

2diy.  Circumcifion,  by  taking  away  a  part  of  the  ilefli, 
denoted  the  nsceffiiy  of  a  change  cf  heart,  and  thus  it  taught 
the  native  d-pravity  cf  mankind,  and  their  need  of  fpiritual 
renovation.  Mofes  evidently  underftood  it  in  tliis  knk,  and 
.theicfrre  fiiys  to  the  Ifraelites,    Dcut.    x.    16.      *'   Circurncife 


the  foreikln  of  your  hearts,  and  be  no  more  ftifF-necked.'''' 
Deut.  XXX.  6.  "  The  Lord  thy  God  willc  ircumcife  thine  heart 
and  the  heart  of  thy  feed  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  ali 
thy  heart  and  foul.'*  Accordingly  the  apoille  declares, 
"  that  circumcifion  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  fpirit."  Cir^ 
cumcifion  then  evidently  denoted  renovation  of  heart,  and  fo 
the  natural  corruption  of  mankind.  When  therefore  a  He- 
brew circumcifed  his  child,  it  taught,  that  the  child  was  pol- 
luted, and  needed  fpiritual  renovation.  So  baptifm  novr 
Itrikingly  denotes  the  pollution  of  the  human  heart,  and  the 
neceffity  of  being  cleanfed  by  the  "  vpafliing  of  regeneration, 
and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghoft."  Hence  the  pouring 
forth  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  perfons  is  called  baptizing  them 
with  the  Holy  Ghoft,  as  in  Ads  xi  15,  16.  So  alfo  in  Ezek. 
xxxvi.  25,  God  fays, ««  1  will  fprinkle  clean  water  upon  you, 
and  ye  fhall  be  clean  ;""referring  to  the  fan<5tifying  influences 
of  the  Spirit,  denoted  by  baptifm.  When  therefore,  baptifm 
is  applied  to  infants  or  others  ;  Hke  circumcifion,  it  teaches 
their  native  depravity,  and  need  of  being  cleanfed  or  renew- 
ed by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

3dly.  Circumcifion  might  typify  or  point  to  the  blood  ef 
Chriil,  which  cleanfeth  from  all  fin,  and  fo  be  defigned  to  lead 
the  Hebrew  church  to  feel  the  neceflity  of  the  fliedding  of 
blood  for  the  remiffion  of  fin.  Baptifm  now  anfwers  the 
fame  end.  It  is  adapted  to  imprefs  the  mind  with  a  ferife  cf 
the  neceflity  of  being  fprinkled  with  the  blood  of  the  Redee- 
iner,  "  the  blood  of  fpi inkling,"  as  the  only  ground  of  pardon 
and  juftiiication. 

4thly.  Circumcifion  was  the  initiating  ordinance  or  door 
ofadmiflion  into  God's  ancient  church  in  this  ht\{^,  that  no 
nne  could  become  a  miember  of  that  church,  be  entitled  to  its 
privileges,  or  partake  of  the  paffoverf  unlcfs  circum.cifed. 
"  For  no  uncircumcifed  perfon  Ihall  eat  thereof."  So  now  ne 
perfon  can  rightly  become  a  member  of  the  chrifiian  church, 
or  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  fupper,  the  Chriftian  pafibver  ; 
unlefs  baptifed. 

In  thefe  various  particulars  the  import  and  deSgn  of  cir- 
cumcifion and  baptifm  are  fimilar,  and  they  very  evidently 
anfwer  the  fame  ends  in  the  church  of  God  under  different 
difpenfations. 

The  refemblance  alfo  between  the  pa/To ver  and  the  Lord's 
fupper  is  very  plain  and  ftriking.  The  pafchal  lamb  typifi- 
ed Chrift,  the  Lamb  of  God.  Its  being  killed,  the  fprinkli«g 
of  its  blcod  upon  the  door  to  fave   from  the  deftroying  angel, 


(23) 

Toaftinglt  in  fire,  &c.  ftrlklngly  denote  thediftrefTmg  fufferings 
and  death  of  the  Saviour^  and  the  falvaticn  of  thofe  who  are 
fpririkled  \rith  his  blood.  And  are  not  thefe  fame  truths  rep- 
refented  in  a  lively  manner  by  the  Lord's  fupper  ?  In  this, 
there  is  a  reprefentation  of  the  broken  and  wounded  body  of 
Chrift,  and  of  his  blood  Ihed  for  finners.  Hence  the  apoftie 
fpeaking  of  the  Lord's  fupper,  ufes  figuratively  the  very  Ian- 
guage  of  the  pafchal  feaft,  "  For  even  Chrift  our  palFover  i? 
lacrificed  for  ws."  Therefore  let  us  keep  the  feaft,  not  .with 
old  leaven,  neither  with  the  leaven  of  malice  and  wickednefs  | 
but  with  the  unleavened  bread  of  fincerity  and  truth."  Cor. 
V.  7,  8.  The  chief  difference  between  the  paflbver  and  the 
Lord's  fupper  is,  that  one  pointed  to  a  Saviour  to  come,  and 
the  other  to  a  Saviour  already  come.  Since  therefore  the  fa- 
craments  under  the  old  and  new  difpenfation  fo  perfectly  agree, 
as  to  their  deiign  and  import ;  is  it  not  abundantly  evideiTC, 
that  the  Hebrev/  and  Chriftian  church  is  the  fame  ? 

6.  We  (hall  adduce  further  proof  of  this  doflrine  from 
plain  exprefi  paffages  of  fcripture.  Thus  Heb.  iii.  2,  3,  ^, 
6.  both  the  Hebrew  and  Chriftian  churches  are  called  God's 
or  Chiift's  houfe,  and  are  fpoken  of  as  the  fame  houfe.  Spea- 
king of  Jefus  Chrift,  it  is  faid,  "  Who  was  faithful  to  him 
that  appointed  him,  as  alfo  Mofes  was  faithful  in  all  his  [i.  e, 
God's  or  Chrift's]  houfe.  For  this  man,  [referring  to  Chrift] 
was  accounted  worthy  of  more  glory  than  Mofes,  in  as  much 
as  he  who  hath  builded  the  houfe  hath  more  honor  than  the 
houfe." 

By  Chrift's  houfe  here  is  evidently  meant  his  church,  which 
in  fcripture  is  frequently  called  his  houfe.  And  as  it  was 
that  church,  in  which  Mofes  was  faithful,  it  muft  mean  the 
Hebrew  church.  This  church  is  here  declared  to  be  Chrift's^ 
for  it  is  faid,  that  he  built  it.  '<  And  Mofes  was  verily  faith- 
ful in  all  his  [i.  e.  Chrift's]  houfe  as  a  fervant,  for  a  teftimo- 
ny  of  thofe  things  v;hich  were  to  be  fpoken  after  ;  but  Chrift 
as  3.  fon  over  his  own  houfe  :  whofe  houfe  are  we"  referring  to 
profeffrng  Chriftians- 

Here  we  may  obferve,  that  Chriftians  or  the  Chriftiar. 
church  are  called  Chrift's  houfe,  and  fo  is  the  Hebrew  church  j 
and  that  Chrift,  is  declared  to  be  the  builder  of  the  Hebrew 
as  well  as  of  the  Chriftian  church  ;  v.'hich  (hows,  that  they 
are  the  fame  ;  as  they  are  both  Chrift's  church. 

Further  our  Saviour  fays  to  the  Jews,  "The  kingdom  vi' 
God  (hall  be  taken  from  you,  and  be  given  to  a  nation  briiig- 
ing  forth  the  fruifs  thereof."     Matt,    xxl.  43.     By   the  king- 


(24) 

dom  of  Gcd  here  k  meant  the^r  church  or  covenant  privilfges, 
which  have  long  fince  been  taken  from  them.  Since  there- 
fore that  very  "  kingdom  of  God"  which  was  taken  from  the 
Je\ts  "becaufe  of  their  onbelicf/'  has  been  given  to  the  be- 
iieving  Gentiles  ;  it  plainly  manifefts,  tliat  the  Chri'lian  church 
is  efientially  the  fame  as  the  Jewilh — is  but  the  coatinuance 
of  that  under  a  new  difpenfation. 

Again,  in  the  prophecies  concerning  the  calling  of  the 
Gentiies,  they  are  reprefented  as  being  added  to  God'e 
andejst  church  and  £lHng  the  place  of  the  Jews  who  were 
hrclen  off  and  fceccming  cne  church  with  them  ;  which 
fhows,  that  the  Chritlian  church  is  but  a  continuation  of  the 
Jewifh.  Thus  Ifai.  xliz.  i8 — 22.  God  fpeaking  of  Zion, 
his  ancient  chui  ch,  fays,  "  Lift  up  thine  eyes  round  about, 
znd  behold  ;  all  thefc  gather  tliemfelves  together  and  come  to 
thee  :  As  I  live  faith  the  Lord,  thou  fiiak  furely  clothe  thee 
•with  them  all  as  with  an  ornament>  The  children  which 
thou  fiialt  have,  after  ihou  hsft  loft  the  other,  fhall  fay  again  in 
thine  ears,  The  place  is  too  ftrait  for  me  :  give  place  to  me 
that  I  may  dwell.  Then,  thou  llialt  fay  in  thine  heart.  Who 
hatli  begotten  me  thefe,  feeirg  I  have  loft  my  children,  and  am 
defolate  a  captive,  and  removing  to  and  fro  ?  Thus  faith  the 
Lord  God,  Behold,  I  v/ill  lift  up  my  hand  to  the  Gentiles — 
and  they  feali  bring  thy  ions  in  their  arms,  and  thy  daughters 
Ihall  he  carried  iipon  their  liioulders."  It  is  evident  from 
this  pa£age,  that  the  chuich  to  which  the  Gentles  were  ga^ 
thered  and  united,  was  one,  that  had  loft  her  other  children 
or  members,  and  had  been  defolate,  a  capdve,  Sec.  And  this 
defcription  exatflly  applies  to  xlie.  Hebrew  church,  which  h^d 
been  frequently  defolate  and  in  captivity,  and  which,  upon 
the  introdndicn  of  the  Chriftian  difpenfation,  loft  the  greater 
part  of  her  other  children  or  members,  v.-ho  were  broken  off 
became  of  unbelief.  And  their  place,  according  to  the  pro- 
phecy, was  more  than  tiled  with  Gentile  converts.  Ibis 
prophecy  therefore  exactly  corrcfponds  with  what  the  apoftle 
fays  Rom.  xi.  about  the  unbelieving  Jcv.  s  being  broken  yoff 
from  the  olive  tree,  and  the  believing  Gentiles  being  grarled  iu 
aniop.g  the  remaining  branches  ;  and  it  clearly  lliQws,  that 
the  Gentile  converts  would  be  incorporated  into  the  ancierit 
Jevviih  church.  Confequently  the  Chriftlan  and  Jewifa 
churches  are  but  one  and  the  iiime  church  under  tv.o  different 
liifpenfafions.  The  fame  fentiment  is  plainly  taught  in  msny 
odier  fimilar  prophecies  concerning  the  calling  in  of  the  Gen- 
tiles.    It  may  alio  be  obfervedjihat  v.he:i.^;c{e  Csntiles  wtre 


(  25  ) 

united  to  God's  anc'ent  church,  they  are  reprefented  as  bring- 
ing the  children  of  ihe  church  in  their  arms.  This  may  inti. 
mate  that  children  of  Gentile  Chrirtian  parents  are  to  be  de- 
dicated to  God,  and  to  enjoy  the  fame  place  and  privileges  in 
the  Chriftian  church,  that  diildren  of  Jevvifli  parents  did  in  the 
ancicHt  church. 

That  the  believing  Gentiles  were  thus  aflually  incorporated 
into  God's  ancient  church  is  clearly  taught  by  the  apoftlcc 
Eph.  ii.  Reminding  the  Gentile  converts  of  their  former  un- 
happy fituation  in  tircie  paft,  he  fays — "  At  that  time  ye  v^ere 
vithout  Chrift,  being  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Ifrae!, 
and  ftrangers  from  the  covenant  of  promife,  having  no  hope 
and  without  God  in  the  world,"  Then  mentioning  how 
Chrift  had  broken  down  the  middle  wall  of  partition  between 
Jews  and  Gentiies,  that  he  might  reconcile  both  unto  God  ia 
one  body,  he  fays,  to  the  believing  Gentiles,  "  Now  therefore 
ye  are  no  more  ftrangers  and  foreigners  (ftrangers  from  the 
covenants  of  promife,  and  aliens  or  foreigners  from  the  com- 
monwealth or  church  of  Ifrael)  but  fellow-citizens  with  the 
faints  (of  God's  ancient  church,  belonging  to  the  fame  com- 
munity and  partaking  of  the  fame  privileges)  and  of  the  houfe- 
hold  of  God" — "  And  are  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the 
apoftles  and  prophets,  Jefus  Chrift  himfelf  being  the  chief 
corner- ftone,  this  fhows  that  the  Hebrew  church,  to  whom 
the  ancient  prophets  minlftered  ;  and  the  Chriftian  to  whom 
the  apoftles  miniftered,  are  built  upon  the  fame  foundation, 
Jefus  Chrift  himfelf  being  the  chief  corner-ftone,  v.hich 
fupports  and  unites  both  in  one.  Confequently  the  Chriftian 
and  Hebrew  church  muft  be  elTentially  the  fame. 

This  truth  is  alfo  abundantly  evident  from  our  test  and 
context.  Thus,  in  verfe  17th  it  is  faid,  that  fome  of  ths 
branches,  denoting  the  unbelieving  Jews,  were  broken  off,  and 
the  believing  Gentiles  were  graffed  in  among  the  Jews  or 
natural  branches  which  flood  ;  and  with  them  partook  "  of 
the  root  and  fatnefs  of  the  olive-tree."  Now  what  church  can 
this  be,  denoted  by  the  olive-tree,  from'which  unbelieving  Jews 
were  broken  off,  and  into  vvhich  the  believing  Gentiles  were 
graffed  in  their  room  ? 

The  Baptifts  fay  that  it  was  the  Chriftian  church.  But  the  un- 
believing Jews  were  never  in  that  cliufc]i,  as  diftin^ft  from  the 
Jev/ifn,  ei'.her  really  or  profeiTedly,  and  fo  could  not  be  broken 
off  from  it.  Would  it  not  be  very  improper  and  uniatelligible 
for  the  apoftle  to  fay,  that  the  greater  pait  of  the  Jev/s  v.ere 
broken  off  from  the  Chriftian  cliuicij  becaufe  qF  wnbelief,  when 
D 


(26) 

te  merely  meant,  that  they  had  never  joihed  thdrnfclves  to  it? 
Yea  it  would  hare  been  juft  as  improper  as  to  have  fa  id,  that 
all  the  unbelieving  heathen  had  been  broken -off  from  the  Chrif- 
tian  church,  bac;iure  they  had  never  belonged  t«  k.  It  is  ma- 
nifeft  then  that  it  muft  be  tlie  Jewifh  church  from  uhich  the 
unbelieving  Jews  were  broken  off ;  for  of  this  church  they  were 
•vihbly  or  profefTedly  members. 

Since  therefore  the  believing  Gentiles  were  grafFed  into  the 
vifible  lewifli  church  among  thofe  who  remained  in  it,  to  par- 
-take  vi-ith  them  in  its  bleffings  and  privileges,  it  is  certain,  that 
the  Chriftian  is  but  the  continuance  and  extenfion  of  the 
JewiOi  church. 

Further,  verfe  20.  "Well,  becaufe  of  unbelief  they  (i.  e. 
Jews)  were  broken  off,  and  thou  (i.  e.  believing -Gentile.)  ftind- 
eft  by  faith."  I'his  (hows,  that  faith  was  a  condition  offtand- 
ing  both  h.i  the  Jewilh  and  Chriftian  church.  For  the  Jews 
were  broken  clF  froin  their  chuich  ftanding  becaufeof  unbe- 
lief, or  for  want  of  faith,  and  the  Chriftian  ftands  by  faith  j 
which  cleiiily  proves,  that  they  are  boih  one  ar.d  the  fame 
church. 

/^. gain,  verfe  23,  it  is  faid,  that  the  Jews,  "if  they  abide 
net  ftiU  in  unbelief,  ihall  be^grafted  in  ;"  and  verfe  24,  "  how 
much  more  (hall  thefe,  which  be  the  natural  branches,  be  graf- 
fed  into  their  own  olive-tree." — Now  the  Jews,  who  had  been 
-brokenofr,  v.'ere,  upon  their  believing,  to  be  received  into  the 
Chriftian  church.  Their  being  received  into  this  church  is 
call'id  being  grafFed  into  their  own  olive-tree,  and  it  is  repre- 
fented,  that  they  were  graff^d  into  the  fame  olive-tree  or  church 
from  which  they  were  broken  off.  This  clearly  fhow's,  that 
the  Chriftian  church  is  but  the  costinuation  of  the  Jewifb 
church.  For  if  I'le  Chriftian  church  is  eifentially  different 
from  the  JewKh,  and  not  a  continuation  of  it,  as  the  Baptifts 
imagine,  what  propriety  would  there  be  in  calling  the  Chriftian 
chi'i'ch  "  their  own  olive-tree,"  ftnce  tliefe  unbelieving  Jews 
never  in  any  fenfe  belonged  to  this  church,  either  vifibly  or 
really  ?  And  how  improper  to  reprelent  their  being  received 
JKto  the  Chriftian  church,  as  being  graffed  into  the  iame  olive- 
tree,  from  which  they  are  broken  off  for  their  unbelief?  Befidcs 
theyiire  called  the  natural  branches  of  this  olive-tree  or  church 
into  which  they  were  to  be  received  if  they  did  not  abide  in 
unbelief.  But  if  the  Chriftian  church  is  not  the  continuation 
of  the  Jewiih,  but  entirely  different-;  what  meaning  or  propri- 
ety could  there  be  in  calliiig  thcie  unbelieving  Jews  the  naiurnl 
br'unciicjs  of  the  Chriftian^ church,  or   olive-tree?    For  upon 


tFits  fupporition  they  could  in  no  fenfe  be  the  natural  branches 
©f  this  c'mrch.  Bat  if  accordini^  to  the  apoille'b,  reprefentAtioa 
ve  conlider  the  Chriftian  church  the  -{ame  ;is  the  Jewllhj  being 
the  Cimi  church  continued  und^r  a  new  dirpenlation-;  we  can 
eafily  fee  the  propriety  of  caUing  the' unbelieving  Jews  the  nat- 
ural branches  of  the  Chritlian  church  or  olive  tree  ;  as  they  are 
the  natural  defcendants  of  this  church  under  the  old  difpenfa- 
tion.  As  therefore  the  Chriftian  church,  into  v/hich  the  Jews, 
if  they  remain  not  in  unbelief,  are  to  be  grafFed,  is  called  ;heir 
own  olive-tree,  and  they  are  faid  to  be  the  natural  branches  of 
it,  it  is  very  evident  that  this  church  is  but  the  continuation 
andextenfion  of  the  Jswifh.  /Accordingly  the  apoflk.  Gal. 
iii.  fpeaks  of  the  bleffings  of  Abraham,  (thofe  blefTuigs  pro- 
mifed  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  and  enjoyed  by  the  Jewifh 
church)  coming  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jefus  Chriil  :  and 
fays,  "  If  ye  are  Chrift's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  feed,  and 
heirs  according  to  the  promife,"  fhowing  that  allbeiievers  ar?. 
the  children  of  Abraham  ;  and  that  therefore  he  is  the  father 
@f  the  Chiiftian  as  well  as  of  the  Jewifh  church.  All  the  truly 
pious  both  in  the  Jewilh  and  Chriftian  church  are  the  real 
children  of  Abraham  ;  for  he  is  the  father  cf  all  v.'ho  believe, 
whether  circumcifed  or  uncircumcifed,  as  the  apoftle  declares. 
Confequently,  all  profelTors  of  religion  under  both  difpenfations 
are  profelTedly  his  children.  But  as  all,  "  which'  were  of 
Ifrael,"  or  members  of  the  Jewifn  church, "  were  not  Ifrael,'* 
or  the  true  children  of  Abraham,  ;  but  many  were  Jevv^j  out- 
wardly who  were  not  fo  inwardly  ;  fo  at  prefent  there  are 
undoubtedly  many  members  of  the  Chriftian  church,  who  are 
outwardly  or  profeifedly  Chriftians  and  Abraham's  children, 
that  are  not  fo  at  heart.  But  omitting  many  other  pafTages 
that  might  be  mentioned,  is  there  not  very  clear  and  abundant 
evidence,  that  the  Jevvifli  and  Chriilian  church  are  eifentiaily 
one  and  the  fame  ?     But, 

Laftly,  lince  the  Baptiils  in  general  very  conddendy  deny, 
that  real  religion  was  required  in  the  covenants,  which  God 
madfe  with  Abraham,  and  with  the  Hebrew  church  In  the 
wildernefs ;  it  may  be  v/ell  to  examine  this  fentiment,  and' 
confider  fome  of  its  confequences. 

I  ft.  In  the  Abrahamic  covenant  God  required  as  the  con- 
dition, that  Abraham  ftiould  "  wal'tc  before  him,  and'  be  per- 
fecT:."  And  in  all  the  revelations  he  made  to  the  patri- 
archs  before  the  days  of  Rlofes,  there  is  no  requirement  more 
expreffive  of  real  religion  than  this  in  thj  Abrahamic  cove- 
naato     if  therefore   real   religion   was   not  required  in  tlie 


(23) 

Abrahaniic  covena-iit,  it  will  follow,  that  God  never  reqai-» 
red,  or  even  mentioned  real  religion  in  any  of  the  revelations, 
that  he  communicated  to  mankind  before  Mofes,  which  was 
a  period  of  about  2500  years. 

And  in  the  covenant,  which  God  mad^  with  the  Hebre"^ 
church  in  the  wildernefs,  he  required  them  to  fear  the  Lord 
their  God,  to  walk  in  all  his  ways,  and  to  love  and  ferve 
him  with  all  their  heart  and  foul — to  circumcife  the  fereskiii 
of  their  heart  and  be  no  more  ftiff-necked.  Deut.  x.  12,  16. 
They  were  alfo  required  to  worlliip  before  the  Lord  their 
God,  and  to  keep  his  ftatutes  and  judgments  v/ith  all  their 
heart,  and  foul,  Deut.  xxvi.  10,  16.  And  on  condition  that 
they  would  obey  his  voice,  and  keep  his  covenant,  God  pro- 
mifed  to  blefs  them,  be  their  God,  and  take  them  for  his  pe- 
culiar people.  Now  there  are  certainly  no  requirements  in 
the  Old  Teftament  more  expreflive  of  real  holineA  or  religion 
of  heart,  than  thefe  in  this  covenant.  If  therefore  God  did 
not  require  real  religion  as  the  condition  of  his  covenant 
with  the  ancient  church,  he  has  no  where  required  or  en- 
joined it  in  the  Old  Tedament.  But  can  any  one  imagine, 
that  God,  in  all  his  revelalions  to  mankind  for  4000  years, 
never  required  real  religon  or  right  affections  of  heart  ?  as 
niuft  be  the  cafe,  if  it  v/as  not  required  in  the  covenants, 
made  with  Abraham  and  the  Hebrew  church.  This  cer- 
tainly is  very  contrary  to  the  reprefentation  of  our  Savitjur. 
For  he  declared,  that  the  fum  of  the  law  or  Mofuic  dif- 
penfation  and  the  prophets  is  to  love  God  wiih  all  the  heart, 
and  our  neighbor  as  aurfelves  j  which  is  the  effence  of  all 
real  religion. 

Further,  it  has  been  univerfally  allowed,  that  the  book  of 
Ffalms  is  as  exprellive  of  true  piety  and  devotion,  as  any 
part  of  the  bible.  But  there  is  not  one  paifage  in  all  that 
book,  which  more  ftrongly  expreffes  real  religion,  than  the 
requirements  of  the  covenant  "  to  love  aad  ferve  God,  walk 
in  his  ways,  and  keep  his  ftatutes  with  all  the  heart  and  foul." 
Confequently  there  is  not  one  word  faid  in  the  book  of  Pfalms 
about  real  piety  or  religion,  if  It  was  not  required  in  tke  co- 
venant, made  with  the  Hebrew  church. 

Therefore  it  muft  be  allowed  eilher  that  real  religion  was 
required  of,  and  profelTed  by  the  Hebrew  church,  and  fo  this 
church  is  eilentially  the  fame. with  the  Chriftian  ;  or  elfe  it 
mull  be  denied,  that  God  ever  required,  or  even  mentioned 
leal religion  in  all  the  Old  Tcftumcut.     .But  which  of  thsie 


(  29  ) 

propofitJons  is  true,  no  perfoti  acquainted  with  his  bible  cag 
doubt  lor  a  moment. 

2d.  It  appears  as  if  it  vould  be  incoiiflflent  with  the  divine 
holinels  and  perfediions  to  enter  into  a  covenant  with  moral 
beings,  which  did  not  require  real  holinefs  or  love  to  God 
as  its  condition,  and  to  promife  them  peculiar  favors  upon 
mere  external,  unholy  obedience.  It  would  in  fa<5t  be  lay- 
ing, that  real  love  to  God  was  a  hard  requirement,  anii 
therefore  he  was  willing  to  difpenfe  with  it.  There  have 
been  great  clamours  and  cavils  againft  God  in  this  wicked 
world,  becaufe  he  requires  depraved  creatures,  who  are  whol- 
ly oppoled  to  his  holy  character,  to  exeVcife  fupreme  love  to 
liim,  and  to  do  whatever  they  do  to  his  glory.  Sinners  con- 
tend, that  this  is  a  very  hard  and  unreafonable  requirement. 
But  God  in  his  word  infifts,  that  thisisjuft  and  fit,  and  that 
his  law,  which  requires  this,  is  holy,  juvt  and  good.  This  is 
cna  great  part  of  the  controveriy,  which  fubfifts  in  this  world 
between  God  and  finners. 

If  llierefore  God  in  fuch  an  important  covenant  as  that, 
which  he  made  with  the  people  of  lirael,  and  which  was  to  be 
known  thro'  his  vail  dominions,  had  relinquiihed  his  claim  on 
the  heart,  by  requiring  nothing  but  external,  heartlefs  obedi- 
ence, and  had  ftipulated  to  grant  them  peculiar  bleffings  on 
any  condition,  fticrt  of  holy  obedience  ;  it  would  have  been, 
in  a  very  public  manner,  giving  up  in  a  great  degree  the 
ccatroverry  of  Tinners.  The  language  of  fuch  condud  ia  God 
v.'ould  have  been,  that  love  to  him  or  obedience  of  heart  was 
rather  a  hard,  unreafonable  requirement,  as  fmners  objedled  ; 
and  that  theiefore  he  was  willing  to  difpenfe  vviih  it.  How 
derogatory  would  fuch  condu»5t  be  to  the  divine  chara6ter,  and 
how  would  it  countenance  the  cavils  of  the  wicked,  that  it  is 
hard  to  require  the  heart?  How  alfo  would  it  have  encou- 
raged the  liiatlices  in  a  formal  unholy  obedience  ?  For  if  God 
did  not  require  the  heart  or  real  religion  in  thofe  lava's  and 
comrrands,  which  conflituted  rhe  requirements  of  his  cove- 
nant, and  which  were  all  that  he  pretended  to  require  of 
them  ;  they  might  juftly  conclude,  that  he  did  not  mean  to 
infill  on  the  heart.  For  in  all  the  revelations  and  directions 
which  God  gave  his  people  by  Mofes,  or  by  the  prophets  af- 
terwards, he  never  intimated  to  them,  that  he  required,  or  even 
wiOied  any  thing  more  of  them,  than  to  fulfil  the  requirements 
of  his  covenant.  It  is  faid  that  tlie  Lord  teftified  againd 
Ifrael  and  Judah  by  all  the  prophets,  faying,  turn  ye  from 
your  evil  ways,  and  keep  my  coznmandments   and   ftatutes, 


(so) 

according  to  the  law,  which  I  commanded  your  father?* 
If  therefore  this  covenant  did  not  require  the  heart  or  a  holy- 
obedience,  then  he  Ifraehtes  had  jult  reafon  to  conclude,  that 
God  did  not  mean  to  infill  on  the  heart,  and  thus  it  was  di^ 
reiftly  calculated  to"  encourage  them  in  a  heartlefs  unholy- 
obedience. 

What  an  impeachment  then  would  it  be  of  God's  holy 
chai-after  to  fuppofe,  that  his  covenant  with  his  ancient  church 
did  not  require  the  heart  or  real  holinefs,  and  fo  had  a  direft 
tendency  to  encourage  a  mere  formal,  unholy  obedience,  by 
giving  them  reafon  to  conclude,  that  he  did  not  mean  to  infift 
on  the  heart  ?  How  different  is  this  idea  of  the  requirements 
of  the  covenant  from  the  reprefentation,  which  Mofes  gave  of 
it,  when  he  fays  to  the  people,  "  And  now  Ifrael,  what  doth 
the  Lord  thy  God  require  of  thee,  but  to  fear  him  to  walk  in 
all  his  ways — to  love  and  ferve  the  Lord  thy  God  with  ail  thy 
heart,  and  with  all  thy  foul."  In  this  and  many  other  paiTa- 
ges  Mofes  exprefsly  tells  them,  that  Gcd's  covenant  with 
them  required  them  to  love  and  keep  his  commands  with  all 
the  heart,  and  that  it  was  on  this  condition,  tiiat  they  were 
to  be  his  people  and  be  entitled  to  temporal  bleffings.  Thus 
h^carefuUy  guards  them  againft  the  idea  that  God  did  not 
mean  to  infift  on  the  heart,  and  that  his  covenant  did  not  re- 
quire a  holy  obedience  as  its  condition. 

Further,  if  God  did  not  require  holinefs  of  heart  in  his  cO' 
venant  with  Ifrael,  as  t>.e  condition  of  the  promifed  bleffings; 
then  he  in  fad  promifed  to  blefs  and  revfard  them  for  doings, 
which  might  be  pei formed  with  an  impenitent  heart,  or,  in 
other  words,  for  fmful,  unholy  doings.  For  there  is  no  me- 
dium in  moral  adlions  between  fm  and  holinefs,  and  all  mo- 
ral adions,  done  with  an  unholy  heart,  muft  be  finful.  "  A 
corrupt  tree  cannot  bring  forth  good  fruit."  Had  God 
therefore,  in  his  covenant,  promifed  peculiar  bleffings  to  fuch 
doing  or  obedience,  as  might  be  performed  with  an  impeni- 
tent heart;  would  it  not  have  been  rewarding  and  encou- 
raging impenitence,  and  thus  have  been  the  foundation  of  a 
high  impeachment  of  the  (Uvine  charadcr  ?  Would  it  not 
i  Tiply,  that  impenitent  fmners  may  do  what  is  pleafing  in  the 
fight  of  a  holy  God,  and  thus  contradid  the  declaration  of 
the  apoflle,  that  "  without  faith  it  is  impoffible  to  pleafe 
him  ?"  Did  not  the  Moft  High  exprefsly  declare  to  his  an- 
cient church,  that  the  facrifices  of  the  wicked  were  an  abom- 
ination to  him  ?  Did  he  not  alfo  manifeft  a  high  difapproba- 
tion  of  the   unholy  obedience   and  religious  fervices  of   the 


(30 

Vic"ked  ?  Ifa.  i.  chap.  "  To  what  purpofe  is  the  multitude 
of  your  facriSces  unto  me  ?  faith  the  Lord.  Bring  no  more 
vain  oblations  ;  incenfe  is  aii  abomination  unto  me  ;  the  new- 
moons  and  fabbaths ;  the  calling  of  affemblies,  I  cannot  away 
with,  it  is  iniquity,  even  the  folemn  meeting.  Your  new- 
moons  and  appointed  feafts  Kij  foul  hatetk."  Now  fince  all 
the  impenitent  aft  from  tlie  fame  unholy  felfifh  temper,  and 
are  equally  deftitute  of  all  holineft,  and  fmce  God  here  mani- 
feftad  fuch  a  difapprobation  of  the  unholy  obedience  and-fer- 
vices  of  the  w'cked  ;  the  fuppofition  is  mod  unreafonable, 
that  his  covenant  required  nothing  more  than  fuch  an  external 
unholy  obedience,  which  he  .thus  condemns  ;  and  that  he  even 
eovenanted  to  reward  fuch  external  unholy  obedience. 

Again,  the  Pharifees  and  Jews,  in  general,  in  the  days  of 
our  Saviour,  a  time  when  the  Jewiflx  church  had  become  very 
formal  and  degenerate,  had  imbibed  this  very  idea,  that  God 
in  his  covenant  or  laws,  given  by  Mofes  required  nothing 
more  than  a  drift  external  obfervance  of  all  the  moral 
and  ceremonial  laws.  When  therefore  our  Saviour  mention- 
ed to  one  of  them  the  requirements  of  the  moral  law,  he  fays, 
"  All  thefe  things  have  I  kept  from  my  youth  up  :  what  lack  I 
yet  ?"  It  feems,  that  he  verily  thought,  he  had  fulfilled  the  re- 
quirements of  God's  law  or  covenant,  becaufe  he  had  yielded 
an  external  obedience,  and  therefore  thought  he  was  by  cove- 
nant entitled  to  God's  favor.  Paul  alfo  fpeaking  of  his  old 
Pharifaical  I'eligion,  Philip,  iii.  6.  fays,  that  touching  the 
righteoufnefs,  which  is  in  the  law,  he  was  blamelefs,  becaufe 
by  a  ftrict  external  obedience  he  had  fulfilled  the  requirements 
of  this  law,  as  it  was  generally  underftood  by  the  Jews  and 
Pharifees.  But  what  did  the  Lord  Jefus,  who  is  the  faifhful 
and  true  witnefs,  fay  on  this  fubjeft.  When  one  aflced  him, 
"  Maikr,  which  is  the  gre-at  commandment  in  the  law" — Jefus 
faid,  "  Thou  fhalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart., 
foul  and  mind.  This  is  the  firft  and  great  command — The  {".-, 
cond  is  like  unto  it,  thou  flialt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyfelf— 
On  thefe  two  commandments  hang  all  th«  law  and  the 
prophets." 

Here  the  faviour  exprefsly  declares,  that  love  to  God  and. 
man,  or  real  religion,  was  required  in  the  law  of  Moies, 
which  conftituted  the  requirements  of  God's  covenant  with 
Ilia  ancient  church.  Is  it  nor  ftrange  then  that  after  our 
Saviour  has  i'o  plainly  decided  the  quellion,  that  any  who  pro- 
fil's  themfeives  Chriilians  fhould  again  imbibe  the  old  Pha:i- 
f-iicai  fenniment,  that  this  law  or  covenant  rzquh'id  nothirg 


(30 

IT/Ore  than  ^neiftemal  obedience,  and  might  be  complied  witla 
by  impenitent  finners. 

Since,  upon  examination,  this  fentinicnt  of  iht  Bapt'tjls^  that 
God  did  not  require  real  holinefs  of  heart,  as  the  condition 
of  his  covenant  with  the  ancient  church,  is  diredly  contrary 
to  fo  many  plain  reprefcntalions  of  the  bible,  and  leads  to 
fo  many  abfurd  coafequcnces,  it  is  certain,  that  it  is  falfe  ; 
and  that  real  religion  was  required  in  God's  covenant  with 
that  church,  as  much  as  it  now  is  in  the  Chritlian. 

Is  not  the  proof  from  the  various  arguments  which  have 
been  adduced,  full  and  unanfwerable,  that  the  Jewifii  and 
Chriftian  chsrch  are  cfl'entially  the  fame  ;  or  ihat  the  lattei 
is  but  the  continuance  and  extension  of  the  former  under  a 
different  difpenfation  ? 

Prv/bably  more  has  been  faid  on  this  fubje^,  than  may  be 
thought  ntce/Tary  by  feme.  But  as  the  fentiment  we  have 
been  proving  is  (irenucufly  denied  by  the  Baptifts,  and  their 
ftrongeft  arguments  and  objeftionr,  ag?an(l  Irfant-Baptifm 
are  grounded  on  the  idea,  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was 
riot  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  that  the  Jewiih  church  was 
^^fientially  different  from  the  Chriftian  ;  it  was  thought  expe- 
dient to  elhibliih  thefe  points  beyond  all  reafonable  difpute. 

But  hovvever  clear  the  proof,  which  has  been  exhibited, 
doubtlefs,  various  obje<5i:ions  witl  be  urged  againft  the  doc- 
trine we  have  been  iiluftrating  and  eftablKhing.  V/e  fhall 
proceed  therefore  to  obviate  fome  of  the  moft  plauuble  of  ihefe 
obje(riions,  as  was  propofed  under  tJic  fecond  general  head. 


(33) 


SERMON  II. 


BUT  here  It  may  be  well  to  obferve,  that  very  plaufible 
objections  may  be  raifed  againft  the  moft  certain 
truths  of  reafon  and  revelation  ;  and  that  perfons  may  have 
very  full,  fatisfadory  evidence  of  a  truth,  and  yet  not  be  able 
clearly  to  anfwer  all  the  objedions  and  difficulties,  which  may 
be  urged  againft  it.  Since  therefore  we  have  fuch  diredl,  full 
and  abundant  proof,  from  the  facred  fcriptures,  of  the  truth 
of  our  doitrine  ;  it  ought  by  no  means  to  Ihake  our  behef  of 
it,  even  where  there  are  objeflions  againft  it  that  we  could 
not  fully  anfwer.  But  it  is  apprehended,  that  the  difficul- 
ties, which  are  urged  againft  the  fentiment  we  have  been  eftab- 
lilhing,  may  in  general  be  eafily  obviated. 

Objection  ift.  The  Abrahamic  covenant,  of  which  cir- 
cumcifion  was  the  feal,  refpeded  chiefly  the  land  of  Canaan 
and  temporal  bleffings  ;  therefore  it  was  not  the  covenant 
of  grace. 

Answer.  The  covenant  of  grace,  as  before  fliown,  means 
a  covenant  propofed  to  unworthy  fmners,  requiring  repentance 
and  faith,  or  real  religion  as  its  condition  ;  and  promifmg 
God's  favor  and  eternal  bleflednefs,  or  that  God  will  be  their 
God,  to  thofe  who  comply  with  its  requifitions.  When  there- 
fore a  covenant  does  thus  require  real  rehgion  as  its  condition, 
and  gracioufly  promife  God's  favor  to  a  compliance,  it  is 
the  covenant  of  grace  ;  notwithftanding  it  may  promife  tem- 
poral bleffings  in  addition  to  fpiritual. 

And  that  die  Abrahamic  covenant  did  require  faith  or  real 
religion  as  its  condition,  and  promife  God's  favor,  or  that  he 
would  be  a  God  to  thofe  who  complied  with  it,  has  been 
fully  proved.  Confequently  it  was  the  covenant  of  grace. 
Granting  therefore,  that  God  did  in  that  covenant  promife 
the  land  of  Canaan  and  other  temporal  bleffings,  in  addition 
to  fpiritual,  it  does  not  afford  the  leaft  evidence,  that  it  was 
not  the  covenant  of  grace.  We  might  as  well  argue,  that  the 
gofpel  d  ifpenfation  is  not  a  covenant  of  grace  ;  becaufe  it 
declares,  that  "  godlinefs  is  profitable  unto  all  things,  having 
pvomile  of  the  life  that  now  is,  and  of  that  which  is  to 
come  i"  and  becaufe  Cbrift  proniires  with  relped  to  food  and 
E 


(  34  ) 

raiment,  "Seek  ye  firft  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  his  nghte- 
oufnefs,  and  all  tk-fe  things  flialf  be  added  unto  you." 

Befides,  if  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  not  the  covenant 
of  grace,  and  promifed  only  the  land  of  -Canaan  and  tempo- 
ral blefflngs,  as  inary  affirm  ;  how  is  it,  that  they,  A^'ho  are 
Chrill's,  are  Abraham's  feed  and  heirs  according  to  the  pro- 
mife  ?  "  Do  all  Gentile  believers  inherit  the  land  of  Canaan, 
arid  multiply  a  numerous  pofterity  ?"  Certainly  they  cannot 
in  any  I'enfe  be  heirs  of  the  bleffings  of  Abraham,  if  the  cove- 
nant, made  with  him,  was  not  the  covenant  of  grace,  but  ref- 
pefted  temporal  bleiiings  only.  But  viewing  it  es  the  cove- 
nant of  gracje,  and  promihng  fpiritual  bleffings;  we  can  rea- 
dily fee,  how  all  V^elievers  are  Abraham's  {&td,  and  heirs  of 
the  fpiritual  blefiings,  promifed  in  that  covenant  ;  and  how  by 
this  covenant  he  became  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe. 
Thus  the  blelTmgs  of  Abraham  Jiave  come  on  the  Gentries 
through  Jefus  Chrift. 

Further;  what  has  now  been  faid  fliows  the  weaknefs  of 
another  fimilar  objedion.  It  is  objected,  that  the  require- 
ments of  God^s  covenant  with  his  ancient  church  were  en- 
forced chiefly  by  promifes  of  temporal  bleifingf,  and  threat- 
enings  of  temporal  evils.  Hence  it  is  concluded,' that  this 
covenant  did  not  require  real  religion  and  piomife  Ipiritual 
bleffings,  and  fo  was  not  a  covenant  of  grace. 

-In  anfwer  to  thi^  it  OT.ay  be  obferved,  that  under  that  dif- 
p/^nfation,  the  knowledge,  which  mankind  had  of  divine  things 
and  the  eternal  world,  was  but  faint  and  obfcure  ;  and  there- 
fore it  vvas  i^iuch  more  neceflkry  to  addrefs  the  fenfes  by 
vifible  objeftf!,  than  it  is  under  the  clear  light  of  the  gofpel. 
Confequently  their  rights  and  modes  of  worfhip  under  that 
dilpentatJQn  wcr£  more  pompous,  ftiowy,  and  calculated  to 
impreis  the  fenfes.  Their  compliance  with  the  divine  require- 
ments was  njore  enforced  with  promiies  of  temporal  gooo,  and 
threatcnines of  tiiTj  oral  evil,  by  which  their  external  fenfes 
were  mor-e^immediarely  addreiied.  But  this  is  no  evidence, 
that  real  religion  or  holy  obedience  was  not  required,  and  that 
no  fpiritual  bleffings  were  promiied.  For  God,  if  he  fees  fit, 
may  as  well  enforce  a  holy  obedience  by  motives  oftemporal 
■.:;rod  and  evil,  as  by  thoie  of  eternal.  Yea,  God  does  en- 
force obedience  in  the  New-Teltamei/t  by  inch  temporal  con- 
fiderations.  Thus  it  is  faid,  "  G<jUlinefs  is  profitable  unto  all 
things,  having  prcmife  of  the  life  li.at  now  is,  and  of  that  which 
is  to  come.'"  "  Ke  ihat  v.ill  love  iife,  and  fee  geod  days, 
.et  him  refrain  his  loii^ue  horn   evil,  and   Lis    lipb   that    they 


(35) 

fpteak  no  guile."  **  And  who  is  he  th^t  will  harm  ynn,  iC-  wc 
be  followers  of  that  which  is  good  "  Alio  Rom.  xin.  Paul 
orges  ChritHans  to  do  good  from  the  confidenaion,  that  in 
this  way  they  would  have  praife  or  encouragement  of  civil  ru- 
lers, and  to  avoid  evil  from  the  confideration,  that  the  ruler 
is  "  the  minifter  of  God,  a  rever^ger  to  execute  wrath  upon 
him  that  doth  evil."  Minifters  of  the  gcfpel  likewife  frtquent- 
ly  urge  their  hearers  to  avoid  fiiifrom  the  confideration  of  its 
evil  ruinous  tendency  in  this  world  as  well  as  the  future.;  and 
to  embrace  religion,  bccaule  it  w^ill  be  for  their  prefent  and 
future  good.  But  this  is  no  evidence,  that  the. obedience  re- 
quired in  the  TsSew-Teilament  is  not  a  holy  obe-dience.  Con- 
feqnentiy  it-  can  be  no  proof  that  a  htrly  obedience  was  not 
required  in  God's  covenant  with  hi-,  ancient  church,  becauf^i 
this  obedience  vyas  enforced  by  many  promifes  of  temporal 
good,  and  threatenings  of  temporal  evil. 

Obj,  2nd.  The  Hebrew  church  was  national,  the  whole - 
nation  being  required  to  circumciie  their  children,  keep  the 
palfover,  and  thus  become  members  of  that  church  ;  otherwiie. 
they  were  to  be  cut  off  from  national,  as  well  as  from  church 
privileges  ;  and  the  whole  nation  did  thus  become  members 
of  that  church,  akho'-  the  gi  eater  part  of  them  were  probably 
deftitute  of  grace.  Therefore  it  may  be  concluded,  that  ho- 
linefs  of  heart  was  not  required  in  the  cxjvenant,  made  with 
the  Ifraelitiih  church,  as  a  term  of  communion  ;  and  fo  it 
muft  be  eilentially  different  from  the  Chriftian  church, 
in  which  faith  or  real  religion  is  required  of  all  its  mera- 
berSi 

Ans.  It  will  be  granted,  that  God  promiJed  peculiar  blef- 
fmgs  temporal  and  fpiritual,  to  his  ancient  church,  and  requi- 
red all  the  Hebrew  nation  to  eater  into,  and  keep  his  covenant, 
obferve  his  inftitutions,  and  thus  become  members  of  that 
church  upon  pain  of  his  difpleafure,  and  of  being  cut  oiF 
from  all  thefe  privileges.  But  does  not  God  now  require  all 
nations,  v^'ho  enjoy  the  gofpel,  to  repent,  beheve,  unite  with 
his  church,  and  Qbferve  divine  ordinances  as  much  as  he 
did  the  Hebrew  nation  ?  And  does  he  not  promife  fpecial 
bleifmgs  to  thofe,  who  cordially  comply  with-  thefe  require- 
ments, and  denounce  dreadful  threaten ings  again ll:  thcfe  who 
neglect  them ;  as  really  as  he  did  with  rel'peft  to  the  Hebrew 
nation  ?  And  are  not  perfons  as  criminal  for  negleding  thele 
duties  now,  as  the  Jews  were  under  that  difpeHlaiion  i  Yea^ 
are  they  not  more  fo,  as  they  hn  againif  greater  light  i" 

External  dilbbedience    in   negkcling  circumciiion,    or  the.; 


Sir.. 


(3<5) 

other  divine  commands  and  inflitutlons,  was  to  deprive  the 
Jew  of  the  external  privileges  of  that  church,  and  expcfe  him 
to  divine  diipleafure.  And  is  it  not  equally  true,  that  ex- 
ternal difobedience,  in  negleding  baptifni,  and  the  other  com- 
mands and  ordinances  of  the  gofpel,  ought  now  to  deprive 
a  perfon  of  the  privileges  of  the  Chriftian  church  ;  and  does 
it  not  adually  expofe  him  to  the  difpleafure  of  God  ?  And  as 
internal  difobedience  or  impenitence  of  heart  deprived  the 
Jew  of  fpiritual  and  eternal  bleffings,  fo  it  does  perfons  un- 
der the  Chriftian  difpenfation.  All  nations  therefore  under 
the  gofpel  are  as  much  required  and  oWigated  to  enter  into 
God's  covenant,  unite  with  his  church,  and  obferve  all  divine 
ordinances,  upon  penalty  of  God's  difpleafure,  as  the  Jews 
were,  For  "  God  now  commandeth  all  men  every  where  to 
repent,"  upon  pain  of  his  wrath,  and  every  day's  negleift  of 
this  command  expofes  to  everlafting  deftru-ftion.  If  there- 
fore the  covenant,  made  with  the  Hebrew  church,  did  not  re- 
quire real  religion,  becaufe  the  whole  nation  were  required 
by  a  certain  penalty  immediately  to  enter  into  it,  as  fome  ar- 
gue ;  it  will  alfo  follow,  that  the  gofpel  difpenfation  does  not 
require  holinefs  of  heart,  becaufe  all  men  are  required  imme. 
diately  to  repent  and  embrace  it  upon  pain  of  divine  difplea- 
fure. The  objedlion  implies  that  God  has  no  right  by  penal- 
ties to  require  perfons  immediately  to  repent  and  embrace 
religion.  If  he  has,  as  all  muft  allow  who  believe  the  bible, 
then  his  requiring  all  the  Hebrew  nation  immediately 
to  enter  into  his  covenant,  affords  not  the  lead  evidence,  that 
this  covenant  did  not  require  real  holinefs  as  its  condition. 
The  truth  is,  God  by  weighty  promifes^and  threalenings 
does  now,  and  always  has  reqnired  all,  wherever  he  has 
fent  his  word,  immediately  to  affent  to  his  covenant,  unite 
■with  his  church,  and  obferve  all  his  ordinances.  He  gives 
none  any  permiffion  to  negle^  his  commands  a  fmgle  day. 
Bmthe  always  requires  them  to  do  thefe  things  with  the  heart, 
or  with  right  afFedions. 

Accordingly  as  has  been  fhown,  the  requirements  of  his 
covenant  with  the  Hebrew  church  were,  that  they  fhould 
love  and  ferve  God,  and  keep  his  commands  with  all  their 
heart  and  foul  ;  he  infilled  much  on  the  heart,  and  feverely 
reproved  them,  when  they  entered  into  his  covenant,  for  lying 
unto  him  with  their  tongues,  becaufe  their  hearts  were  net 
right.  And  he  finally  broke  oiF  the  unbelieving  Jews  from 
this  church  "  becaufe  of  their  unbelief.'* 

Thefe  confiderations  ftiow,  that  Gtdnojnore  requked,  or 


allowed  the  Jews  to  enter  into  his  covenant,  become  members 
of  his  church,  circumcife  their  children,  and  attend  upon  di- 
vine ordinances  with  an  impenitent  heart,  than  he  now  re^ 
quires  perfons  to  do  thefe  things  in  fuch  a  manner.  He  plain- 
ly told  his  ancient  church,  that  the  facrifices  of  the  wicked 
were  an  abomination  to  him  ;  to  the  wicked  he  faid  «  What 
haft  thou  to  do,  that  thou  fhouldeft  take  my  covenant  in  thy 
mouth;"  and  he  often  exprefil'd  his  deteftation  of  hypocrify. 
It  was  therefore  as  really  wrong  for  a  Jew  to  circumcife  his 
child,  profefs  to  enter  into  covenant  with  God,  and  become 
a  member  of  his  church  without  real  religion,  as  it  would  be 
for  a  pcrfon  now  to  profefs  religion,  fit  down  at  the  Lord's 
table,  or  offer  himfelf  or  child  in  baptifra  with  an  impenitent 
heart. 

With  refpe(51:  to  the  otlier  part  of  the  objeftion,  tliat  the 
whole  Jewifli  nation  were  members  of  that  church,  while  the 
greater  part  bad  no  true  religion  ;  it  may  be  anfwered,  that 
this  *s  no  proof  that  real  religion  was  not  required  of  them 
as  a  qualification  for  member/hip.  Is  it  any  proof,  that 
God  does  not  require  holinefs  of  heart  as  a  term  of  member- 
fhip  in  the  Chriftian  church,  becaufe  many  become  members, 
and  attend  upon  the  peculiar  ordinances  ot  the  gofpel,  while 
deftitute  of  holinefs  ;  or  becauft  the  greater  part  in  fome 
churches  may  have  no  religion  ?  This  is  looking  at  the  prac- 
tice of  the  church,  inftead  of  God's  requirements,  which 
tends  to  leacl  into  error,  rather  than  truth.  But  if  we  look 
at  God's  requirements,  which  cannot  be  in  the  leaft  invalidated 
by  the  pradice  of  men  ;  it  will  be  evident,  as  has  been  al- 
ready Ihown,  that  real  religion  was  required  in  his  cove- 
nant with  the  Hebrew  church.  And  therefore  its  conftitu- 
tion  was  elfentiallv  the  fame  as  that  of  the  Chriftian,  whe- 
ther all  or  part  of  the  nation  were  profeftcdly  members  of  it, 
or  whether  there  were  few  or  many  hypocrites  in  it.  Thefe 
things  do  not  at  all  alter  tl*e  divine  conflitution  and  require- 
ments refpedting  thi^  church. 

Obj.  3d.  The  Hebrew  children,  merely  by  birlh  and  be- 
ing circumcifed,  v.'ere  brought  into  covenant  with  God,  and 
made  members  of  his  church  under  that  difpeniacion.  For 
it  is  faid,  Gen.  xvii.  14.  «  And  the  uncircuniciied  man-child, 
^vhofefieihof  his  foretliin  is  not  circumcifed,  that  foul  Ihall 
be  cut  oiF  from  his  people  :  he  hath  broken  my  covnant.'* 
But  as  children  cannot  by  birth  and  baptifin  be  brought  into 
the  covenant  of  grace,  and  become  members  of  the  Chrif- 
tian churob,  in  which  faith  and  holinefs  are  required  of  all  its 


(38) 

m^maers,  It  may  be  concluded,  that  God's  covenant  with  the 
Ht  brew  church  was  not  the  covenant  of  grace  ;  and  that  this 
church  was  efTentially  different  from  the  Chriftian. 

Ans.  If  we  conuder  what  is  meant  by  covenanting  or  be- 
ing in  covenant,  it"  will  be  evident,  that  there  is  a  fenfe,  in 
which  Hebrew  infants  were  not  perfonally  brought  into  cove- 
nant, merely  by  birth  and  circumcifion.  The  proper  mean- 
ing c(  a  covenant,  is  an  agreement  betw^een  parties,  or  it  is 
when  one  party  makes  a  conditional  propofal  to  another  ; 
and  the  other  party,  by  aflenting  to  this  propofal,  enters  into 
the  covenant.  No  one  therefore  can  in  thts  fenfe  be  in  cove- 
nant vith  another,  unlefs  he  does  in  fome  way  afient  to  the 
propofol  or  requirements  of  the  covenant.  And  that  the  cove- 
nant, which  God  made  with  Abraham  and  the  Hebrew 
church  in  the  wildernefs,  did  promife  certain  bleffings  on 
certain  conditions,  and  fo  was  a  covenant  in  the  common  ufe 
of  the  word,  lias  been  already  fhown.  Accordingly  God  ex- 
prefsly  told  the  Ifraelites,  that  if  they  would  obty  his  voice 
and  keep  his  covenant,  they  fliould  be  his  people,  a'nd  he 
would  blefs  them,  &c.  But  Hebrew  infants,  merely  by  being 
ciro'.mcifed  at  eight  days  old,  neither  did  nor  could  give  any 
a/fent  to  God's  covenant  ;  for  they  were  wholly  ignorant  and 
paffive  in  the  iranfaciion.  ^  Confequcntly  they  cculd  not  in 
this  fenfe  be  brought  into  covenant  by  circun  cifion. 

Should  if  then  be  allowed,  as  the  Baptifts  fuppofe,  that 
God's  covenant  v.ith  Abraham  and  the  Hebrew  church  was 
not  the  covenant  of  grace,  but  a  covenant,  promifing  tempo- 
ral bleffings  on  conciition  of  external  obedience,  ftill  this 
would  not  remove  the  difficulty.  For  an  infant  by  being  cir- 
cumcifed  at  eight  days  old,  could  no  more  give  his  affent  to 
a  covenant,  requiring  external  obedience,  than  he  could  to 
one  requiring  internal,  or  holinefs  o{  heart.  There  is  the 
fame  difficulty  in  his  aflenting  to  the  one,  as  to  the  other. 

Let  the  covenant  therefore  with  the  Hebrew  church  be  the 
covenant  of  grace,  or  not ;  yet  as  infants  could  not  by  their 
circumcifiOR  give  afTent  to  it,  fo  they  could  not  in  this  fenfe 
be  brought  into  the  covenant.  They  muft  in  fome  way  af- 
fent  to  the  covenant,  before  they  could  be  perfonally  in  cove- 
nant with  God  in  the  proper  fenfe  of  the  v/ord.  Nor  could 
they  without  fuch  an  affent  to  the  covenant  be  juftly  confi- 
dered  as  proper  or  complete  members  of  God's  church.  For 
the  covenant,  which  God  made  with  Abraham,  and  with 
his  people  in  the  wildernefs  was  the  conftitution  of  his  vifi- 
ble church.     None  therefore  eould  be   confidered  as   proper 


(39) 

actual  members  of  this  church,  and  entitled  to  all  its  pnvi» 
leges  ;  until  they  had  in  ibme  way  given  their  aflent  to  this 
covenant  or  conftitution,  on  which  it  vras  founded.  This 
aiTent  was  as  necelTary  to  make  them  members  in  this  fenfe? 
as  the  Freeman's  oath,  or  a  foleran  aflent  to  our  conftitution, 
is  to  make  a  perfon  a  complete  member  of  our  civil  commu- 
rvity. 

We  therefore  find  frequent  accsunts  in  fciipture,  where  t}ie 
whole  nation  of  Ifrael  explicitly  entered  into  covenant  with 
God  by  a  public  profeffion.  And  every  individual  of  them, 
when  he  circumcifed  his  child,  did  by  this  tranfaftion  profefs 
his  affent  to  God's  covenant,  and  engage  to  keep  it.  They 
did  this  alfo  whenever  they  offered  a  facrifice,  as  all  were 
commanded  to  do  frequently.  For  God  fays,  Pfalm,  1.  5. 
*'  Gather  my  faints — thofe  that  made  a  covenant  with  me  by 
facrifice  ;"  which  (hows  that  facrificing  was  an  appointed 
mode  of  covenanting  ;  and  that  a  perfon  did  profeffedly 
aflent  to  God's  covenant,  whenever  he  offered  a  facrifice  ac- 
cording to  divine  appointment.  And  this  all  the  males  were 
commanded  to  do  at  leaft  three  times  in  a  year.  For  they 
were  all  to  appear  before  the  Lord  at  the  three  annual 
feafts,  and  none  were  to  come  empty,  or  without  his  offer- 
ing, Deut.  xvi.  16-  The  book  of  the  law  or  covenant  was  to 
be  read  to  all  the  people  once  in  feven  years,  that  they  might 
know  what  it  required  of  them  ;  and  probably,  that  they 
might  publicly  give  their  aflent  to  it,  as  they  did  in  the  days 
of  Jofiah,  Nehemiah,  &c.  In  thefe  various  ways  they  were 
continually  profeffmg  their  perfonal  affent  to  God's  covenant 
and  engaging  to  keep  it.  The  Hebrew  church  therefore 
were  reprefented  as  in  a  marriage  relation  to  the  Lord  ;  which 
fhows,  that  they  did  in  fome  way  perfonally  aflent  to  God's 
covenant,  and  profefs  to  be  his  :  as  the  wife  engages  to  be. 
her  hulband's  in  the  marriage  covenant.  When  therefore, 
the  Hebrews  apoftatized  from  God,  they  were  charged  with 
breaking  covenant  with  him. 

Again,  the  Hebrew  children  were  not  merely  by  their 
birth  and  circumcifion  fo  br(?«ght  into  this  covenant  as  to  be 
entitled  to  its  promifes  and  bleflings  ;  even  upon  the  fuppo- 
fuion,  chat  it  proniifed  nothing  but  temporal  bleffings  as  thj 
Baptitts  fuppofe.  For  Efau,  as  well  as  Jacob,  could  piei-.d 
thefe  conditions,  yet  he  was  exprefsly  excluded  from  the  bleC- 
fings  of  this  covenant.  So  could  the  congregation,  who  thro' 
unbelief  could  not  enter  Canaan,  and  inherit  the  promifed 
bleffings,  but  v.T^ichsdly   periihed  in    the    vviidcraefs— thofe 


(4o) 

alfo,  vh«  in  the  days  of  the  apoftles  were  broken  ofF  from 
God's  church  and  deprived  of  all  its  privileges  and  blefllngs, 
and  even  the  great  body  of  the  Jewifii  nation  ever  fince  that 
period.  Since  therefore  fo  many  millions  who  were  born  of 
Hebrew  parents  and  circumcifed  on  the  eighth  day,  have  ne- 
ver enjoy  sd  thebleffings,  promifed  in  God's  covenant  ;  it  is 
evident,  that  merely  birth  and  circumcifion  did  not  fo  bring 
children  into  this  covenant,  as  to  enfare  to  them  its  promifes. 
Something  further  was  required,  either  of  them  or  of  their 
parent,  or  of  both,  in  order  to  entitle  them  to  the  promifed 
bleflings. 

If  then  the  meaning  of  this  objeflion  urged  by  the  Baptifts, 
is,  that  Hebrew  children  did  by  circumcifion  enter  perfonally 
into  covenant  with  God,  and  fo  become  members  of  his  church, 
or  that  merely  birth  and  circumcifion  did  enfure  to  them  the 
promifesandbleffingsof  thiscovenant,it  is  evidently  a  very  great 
miftake.  For  let  the  covenant  require  either  internal  or  ex- 
ternal obedience,  it  is  evident,  that  an  infant  by  being  circum* 
cifed  could  not  give  any  aflent  to  it.  Neither  had  the  Hebrew 
children,  merely  by  their  circumcifion,  any  more  title  to,  or 
affuranee  of,  temporal  bkffings  than  they  had  of  fpiritual.  If 
this  therefore  is  the  meaning  of  the  objedtion,  it  is  not  only 
evidently  falfe;  but  it  alfo  involves  the  Baptifts  in  the  famediffi- 
cultyas  it  does  us.  For  there  is  the  fi-me  difficulty  in  fuppofing, 
that  an  inHint  could  affent  to,  or  perfonally  enter  into,  a  cove- 
nant requiring  interoal  obedience,  as  into  one  requiring  exter- 
nal. And  when  they  fiiall  fliow,  how  an  infant  can  give  his 
affent  to  an  external,  graceiefs  covenant  ;  we  doubtlefs  fhall 
be  able  by  means  of  their  difcovery  to  (how,  how  infants  can 
in  the  fam.e  way  give  their  afient  to  the  covenant  of  grace. 
But  if  this  is  not  the  meaning  of  this  ohjedion,  then  it  affords 
no  proof,  that  God's  covenant  with  his  ancient  church  did 
not  require  real  holinefs,  and  was  not  the  covenant  of  grace. 
Therefore  in  pcifeftconfiftence  with  the  fentiment,  that  God's 
covenant  required  real  religion  of  the  Hebrew  church,  and 
that  this  church  was  effentially  the  fame  with  the  Chrillian,  it 
m.iy  be  allowed. 

2dly,  Thatihe  Hebrew  infants  might  in  a  certain  fenfe 
be  in  God's  covenant;  and  belong  to  the  chuich.  God  in  his 
covenant  or  promifes,  might  engage  or  give  encouragement 
to  parents,  if  they  would  walk  before  him  in  the  ways  of  reli- 
gion and  be  faithful  in  training  up  their  children  for  him, 
that  he  would  blefs  their  children  and  be  their  God  by  cir- 
cumcifing  their  hearts.     God  might  covenant  vv^ith  parents, 


(41) 

or  make  fuch  promifes  concerning  their  children,  and  yet  the 
children  not  be  perfonally  or  adlively  in  covenant. 

And  there  are  feme  paflages,  which,  if  they  do    not  con- 
tain, abfolute  promifes,  yet  certainly  afford  parents   great   en- 
couragement to  hope,  that  if  they  are  faithful,  God  will  biefs 
their  children.      Thus  it  is  faid,  Deut.    iv.  40.    "  Thou   flialt 
keep  his  commandments,  that  it  may  go  well  with  thee,  and 
thy  children  after  thee."      It  is  declared  that  the  feed   of  the 
righteous  is  bleffed — that  they  are  the   feed  of  the    blefled   of 
the  Lord,  and  their  offspring  with  them — that    God's  r'ight- 
eoufnefs  is  unto  children's  children  ;    to  fuch  as  keep  his  com- 
mandments.    God  promifes  his   church,  which    promife   has 
a  fpecial  reference  to  the    Chriftian   church.       *' I    will  pour 
out  my  fpirit  npon  thy  feed,  and  my  bleding  >iipon   thine  off- 
fpring."     Ifai.  xliv.  3.      "  And  I  will  give  you  one  heart  and 
one  way,  that  they   may  fear  me   forever,  for  the   good  of 
them  and  their  children  after  them."  Jer.   xxxii.  39.      The 
Pfalmifl  alfo  fays,  that  the   «*  Lord  eflabiifbed  a  teftimonyy 
and  appointed  a  law  in    Ifrael,   which  he   commanded   our 
fathers  that  they  (hould  make  known  to  their  children  ;  That 
the  generation  to  cofne  might  know  them,  even   the   children 
which  fhould  be  born  ;  who  fhould  arife  and  declare  them   to 
their  children  :  That  they  might  fet  their  hope  in  God,   and 
not  forget  his  works  but  keep  his  commandTnents."      "  Train 
up  a  child  in  the  way  he  Qiould  go  ;  and   when  he  is  old  he 
will  not  depart  from  it."       "  Thou  fhalc   bszt  him    with  the 
rod,  and  (halt    deliver  his  foul    from    hell."     Such    pa/fages 
feem  to  promife  fpecial  bleffings  to  the  children  of  the   godly, 
and  to  conned  the  good  of  their  children  with  the  obedience 
and  faithfulnefs  of  the  parents. — At  lead  they  afford  great  en- 
couragement to  parents  to  be  faithful  and   diligent  in    their 
walk  with  God  and  in  their  duty  towards  their  children.     1  he 
promife  in    the  Abrahamic  covenant  that  God  would  be   a 
God  to  him,  and  to  his  feed   after  him,  may    mean,   not  only 
that  God  would  be  the  God  of  his  fpirilual  feed,    but  alfo  that 
God  would  be  the  God   of  his  natural  feed   by  civcumcifing 
their  hearts,  if  he  would  fulfil  the  covenant  by   walking  befoie 
God,  and  being  perfect.     The  promife  may  at  leall   admit  of 
thisconftrudion. 

Should  it  be  granted  then,  that  the  Hebrew  children  were 
in  covenant  in  this  fenfe,  that  God  gave  promifes  or  encour- 
agements to  parents,  that  if  they  weie  obedient  and  faithful, 
he  would  blefs  or  renew  their  children,  and  thus  be  their 
G<)d  ;  would  this  afford  any  evidence,  that  his  covenant  with 
F 


•«'«[■ 


(40 


the  Hebrew  church  was  not  the  covenant  of  grace  ?  So  far 
from  this,  that  it  would  rather  afford  a  ftrong  proof  in  favor 
of  it.  An  if  there  were  fuch  promifes  or  encouragemer,tfi 
given  to  members  of  the  Ifraelitifli  church,  refpefling  their  chil- 
dren on  condition  of  their  faithfulnefs  ;  then  thefe  are  ftill  in 
force  refpefting  the  children  of  believers.  For  believing 
Gentiles  are  engraffed  into  this  good  olive-tree  or  Jewiih 
church,  and  partake  cf  its  root  and  fatnefs,  or  of  its  eflential 
j)rivileges  and  promifes,  refpefting  both  themfelves  and  chil- 
dren. And  the»children  of  believers  are  now  as  capable  of  be- 
ing in  covenant  in  this  fenfe^  as  v/ere  the  children  of  the  Jewiflj 
.church. 

The  Jewifh  children  7»igit  alfo  in  a  fenfe  belong  to  the 
church.  .When  a  Jew  circumcifed  his  child,  and  thus  put 
-the  feal  of  God's  covenant  upon  it,  tlie  tranfa£tioa  denoted 
that  he  dedicated  his  child  to  God — fet  God's  mark  upon  it 
as  his  peculiar  property,  and  thus  laid  himfelf  under  peculiar 
obligations  to  bring  it  up  for  God.  As  the  child  was  thus 
yivtn  up  to  Godj  the  church,  as  being  profefTedly  God's  peo- 
ple and  friends,  might  be  obligated  to  take  care  of  it  for  hinii 
— to  fee,  that  it  was  properly  inftructed  and  trained  up  for 
his  fer-vicp — toexercife  a  fuitable  watch  and  care  over  it,  and 
to  endeavor  to  imprefs  upon  its  mind  a  fenfe  of  the  impor- 
tance of  divine  things,  and  of  its  obligations  to  devote  itfelf 
to  God,  and  to  enter  cordially  into  his  covenant.  But  if  the 
child,  when  arrived  at  a  fuirable  age,  was  difobedient,  cr  vi. 
citms  and  vrreligious,  or  if  he  manifefted  an  impenitent  tem- 
per by  not  entering  perfonally  irrto  God's  covenant,  attending 
upon  his  ordinances,  and  obeying  his  ftatutes  ;  it  might  be 
the  divine  conftitution,  that  he  fhould  be  cut  off  or  be  debar- 
red from  all  the  privileges  of  God's  church  or  people.  The 
Jewiih  children  might  belong  to  God  in  fome  fuch  fenfe  ; 
as  the  church  might  be  under  obligation,  t»  exercife  a  pecu- 
liar care  and  watch  ever  them,  becaufe  publicly  given  to  God. 
But  ftill  thefe  children  were  not  perfonally  in  covenant  with 
God,  or  aftual  members  of  his  church,  until  they  did  in  fome 
way  perlbnally  aflent  to  his  covenant.  And  this  they  did, 
not  only  by  making  a  public  profe.ffion,  as  the  whole  nrtion 
often  did,  but  alfo  "by  offering  facrifices,  circumciung  their 
children,  and  obferving  other  divine  ordlaances;  which  were 
covenant  transadions,  by  which  they  prcfe/Tcd  to  affent  to,  or 
comply  with  God's  covenant. 

It  might  pi-ob<>!;ly  be  on  account  of  their  being  thiis  dedi- 
cated to^God,  Iiaving  the  ftal  uf  hi&  covenant   fst  upon   them 


as  his  peculiar  property,  and  belonging  to  his  church  :n  th^ 
ienfe  now  pointed  out,  that  the  Jewifii  children  were  termedt 
^  the  holy  feed,"*  the  children  of  the  covenantf  and  that  Gad 
calls  them  his  children  whom  they  had  born  to  him.;}: 

And  as  believing  Gentiles  are  grafFed  into  the  fame  churcH 
and  partakers  of  its  privileges,  fo  their  children  may  now 
Hand  in  the  fame  relation  to  God's  church,  as  Jewifti  chil- 
dren did  under  the  ancient  diipenfation.  And  this  may.  be 
:lie  reafon  v.'hy  the  children  of  believers  are  by  the  apoftle 
called  holy.  Alio  when  the  difcipies  rebuked  thofe  who 
brought  little  children  unto  Chrid,  that  he  might  lay  his  hand 
on  them,  and  bkfs  and  pray  for  them  ;  Jefus  faid,  "Suffer 
Tittle  chiidi!  en,  and  forbid  them  not  to  come  unto  me  j,  for 
ofluchisthe  kingdom  of  heaven."  Mat.  xix.  14.,  Now 
thofe,  who  thus  brought  their  children  to  Chrift  for  his 
bleffing,  were  doubtlefs  believers  or  friends  to  him  ;  otherwife 
they  would  not  have  brought  them  to  him  for  his  bleffing. 
It  appears,  that  thefe  children  were  brought,  that  Chrlil  might 
blefs  them,  and  not  to  be  cured  of  any  bodily  difeafe  ;  for  the 
difcipies  would  not  have  rebuked  parents  for  bringing  chil- 
ilren  to  be  healed;  And  by  the  kingdom  of  heaven  our  Sa- 
viour in  his  difcourfes  generally  meant  his  vifibie  kingdom  or 
church.  When  therefore  he  faid,  "  Of  fiach  is  the  kingdora 
of  heaven"  it  may  teach,  that  the  childi  en  of  believers  now 
were  in  a  certain  fenfe  to  belong  to  the  ChriftJan  church,  as 
the  Jewifh  children  did  to  God's  ancient  church. 

Should  it  then  be  allowed,  as  objedled,  that  the  Jewifh 
children  in  fome  fuch  fenfe  were  in  covenant,  and  did  belong 
to  the  church  ;  yet  this  would  be  no  proof,  that  God's  cove- 
nant with  that  church  was  not  the  covenant  of  grace,  but 
would  rather  confirm  the  evidence,  that  it  was. 

And  if  this  was  the  caf«!,  as  fome  paliages  fecm  ta  intimatej, 
then  the  children  of  behevers  may  ftand  in  this  fame  relation 
CO  God's  covenant  and  church  at  prefent. 

And  viewing  the  baptifm  of  children  in  this  light  would' 
tend  to  render  it  a  ftill  more  fignificant,  important  and  fo- 
lemn  tranfadion.  When  a  parent  dedicates  his  children  in 
this  ordinance,  it  is  a  token  of  his  faith,  or  aflent  to  God's 
covenant,  and  he  thus  renews  covenant  with  God,  and  re- 
newedly  obligates  himfelf  to  walk  with  God  in  all  the  duties 
of  religion>  as  much  as  when  he  fits  down  at  the  Lord's  table  ; 
He  alfo  in  this  ordinance  profefles  to  give  up  his  children  to 
God,  and  binds  himfelf  to  bring  them  up  for  him.  The  to- 
•E»Ta,  U.  2.  f  A^s  Jii,  a5.  Erck,  xv;.  20,  a. 


(44  ) 

Icen  of  God's  covenant  being  put  upon  them  m?ij  denote, 
that  they  are  given  up  to  God  as  his  in  a  peculiar  manner  ; 
and  that  therefore  the  church  are  obligated  to  fee,  that  they 
have  a  chriftian  education  and  are  brought  up  in  the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord,  and  to  take  care  and  watch  over 
them  for  God,  as  being  his  peculiar  property.  And  were 
parents  and  the  church  faithful  in  inftruding,  warning  and 
watching  over  fuch  children,  and  in  impreffing  them  with  a 
fenfe  of  their  obligations  to  love  and  ferve  God  and  devote  them- 
felves  to  him,  it  would  have  a  peculiar  tendency  to  reftrain 
them  from  vice,  ferioufly  affcft  their  minds,  and  influence 
them  to  engage  in  religion.  But  it  is  to  be  lamented,  that, 
thofe  churches  and  individuals,  who  pradife  infant  baptifm, 
are  fo  negligent  of  their  duty  towards  their  children  ;  and 
that  there  are  other  Chriftians,  who  have  fo  tar  deviated  from 
the  original  conftitution  of  God's  church,  that  they  even  deny 
it  to  be  their  duty  to  give  up  their  children  to  God  by  putting 
the  token  of  his  covenant  upon  them,  and  thus  to  obligate 
themfelves  to  bring  them  up  for  God. 

Obj.  4.  Canaan  V- as  a  type  of  heaven,  and  the  rites,  ordi- 
nances and  ceremonies  of  the  ancient  church  were  typical, 
and  pointed  to  Chrift  and  gofpel  truths.  Therefore  it  may 
be  concluded,  that  this  church  was  in  a  typical  covenant,  or 
was  a  type  of  the  Chriftian  church,  but  was  not  the  real  vi- 
fible  church  of  Chrift. 

Ans.  The  fcripture  no  where  calls  the  Hebrew  church  a 
type  of  the  Chriftian  or  gives  any  hint,  that  it  was  a  typical 
in  oppofition  to  a  real  church.  It  is  doubtlefs  true,  that  many 
of  the  ordinances  and  inftitutions  of  the  Hebrew  church  were 
typical,  and  pointed  to  gofpel  truths.  But  to  argue,  that  a 
church  muft  be  merely  typical,  and  not  a  real  church  of  Chrift, 
becaufe  it  was  taught  gofpel  truths  by  types  and  emblems, 
is  as  abfurd  as  it  would  be  to  argue,  that  becaufe  a  perfon  is 
taught  a  truth  bj  metaphors  or  parables,  therefore  he  him- 
felf  m.uft  be  a  mere  metaphor,  and  not  a  real  perfon.  Many 
things  refpedling  the  Hebrew  church,  and  God's  dealings  with 
it,  were  doubtlefs  defigned  for  our  inftrudioa,  and  to  illuftrate 
or  exemplify  God's  dealings  with  Chriftians.  According  to 
the  declaration  of  the  apoftle,  when  fpeaking  of  what  befel 
them  in  the  wildernefs,  "  All  thefe  happened  unto  them  for 
enfamples  :  and  they  are  written  for  our  admonition."  Thus 
their  journey  from  Egypt  thro'  the  wildernefs  to  Canaan, 
and  what  befel  them  by  the  way,    &c.  may  in  mixny  re fpefls 


(  45  ) 

fcfemble  the  journey  of  the  Chiiftian,  thro'  the  wildernefs  of 
this  world,  to  the  heavenly  Canaan.  But  have  we  any  rea- 
lon  to  conclude,  that  the  Hebrew  was  a  typical  and  not  a  real 
church,  becaufe  their  conduft,  and  God's  treatment  of 
them,  were  defigned  for  our  inftru6tion,  and  to  iiluftrate  his 
dealings  with  Chrirtians  ?  Is  not  this  an  argument  in  favour 
of,  rathei  than  againft  their  being  a  real  cliurch  ?  Might  we 
not  as  well  conclude,  that  Noah  an^s  Lot  were  not  real  Chrif- 
tians  ;  becaufe  there  are  many  things  in  Noah's  falvjitioa 
in  the  aikfrom  the  deluge,  and  in  Lot's  efcape  from  Sodom, 
which  may  refemble,  or  be  illuftrative  of  the  believer's  f.ilva- 
tion  from  divine  wrath  ?  When  therefore  perfons  aflert,  that 
the  Hebrew  church  was  not  the  real  church  of  Chriil,  but  a 
mere  type  of  it,  and  thus  eiU-ntially  different  from  the  Chrif- 
tian  ;  thsy  aiTert  that,  for  which  they  have  no  proof,  and  which 
is  diredlly  contrary  to  the  cleareft  evidence  from  the  fcriptures, 
which  plainly  teach,  that  the  Chriftian  and  Hebrew  church 
are  the  fame.  And  fince  the  condiiion  of  the  covenant,  God 
made  with  the  Hebrew  church  in  the  wildernefs  was,  thac 
they  (hould  love  Him  with  all  their  heart  and  foul,  and  the 
people  expreiily  promifed  or  profeffed  to  Iceep  this  covenant  ; 
is  it  not,  at  belt,  iifing  words  without  fenfe  or  meaning  to  fay, 
as  fome  do,  that  this  was  covenanting  typically,  or  entering 
into  a  typical  covenant.  What  fenfe  or  meaning  can  there 
be  in  faying,  that  they  avouched  God  typically  to  be  th^ir  God  : 
and  promifed  to  love  him  typically  with  all  their  heart,  and 
typically  to  keep  his  commands  v/ith  all  their  foul  ?  If  fuch 
promiies  as  thefe,  made  by  the  Hebrew  church,  were  cove- 
nanting typically,  or  entering  into  only  a  typical  covenant, 
where  can  we  find  any  real  covenant  or  covenanting.  Does 
any  Chriftian  church  profefs  more  than  this  ?  And  v/ere  not 
all  the  members  of  that  church,  who  v/ere  at  heart  what  they 
profeifed,  as  much  entitled  to  falvation,  as  any  now  are?  If 
fo,  what  propriety  or  fenfe  can  there  be  in  calling  it  a  typical 
covenant  ? 

Obj.  5.  It  is  afTerted  by  fome,  that  the  paflage  of  Jer. 
which  is  quoted  and  applied  by  the  apolile,  Heb.  viii.  8,  9,  10, 
11,  iq,  is  a  conclufive  proof  that  the  gofpel  church  is  materi- 
ally different  from,  the  Hebrew  ;  andlhatthe  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant was  elfentially  different  from  this  new  and  better  cove- 
nant of  grace,  upon  which  the  Chriftian  church  is   now   fcnn- 

•  dad.     The  words  of  the  apnftle,  upon  which  this  objection  is 

•  founoed,  are  thefe.  "  For  finding  fault    with  them,   he  faithj 
behold  the  davs  come— when  I  v/ill  make  ans'^v  covcnar^t  Vvit:a 


(46) 

llie  houfe  of  Ifrael,  and  vt'lth  the  houfe  of  Judah  :  Not  accor- 
ding to  the  covenant  that  I  made  with  their  fathers  in  the  day 
I  took  them  by  the  hand  to  lead  them  out  of  Egypt  ;  becaufe 
they  continued  not  in  my  covenant,  and  1  regarded  them  not, 
faith  the  Lord.  For  this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with 
the  houfe  of  Ifrael  after  thofe  days  ;  I  will  put  my  laws  into 
their  mind,  and  write  them  in  theiT  hearts:  And  I  will  be  to 
them  a  God,  and  they  fliall  be  to  me  a  people.  And  they 
fhall  not  teach  every  man  his  neighbor — aad  brother,  faying, 
Know  the  Lord  :  for  all  (hall  know  me  from  the  leaft  to  the 
greateft."  And  in  that  he  faith  "  A  new  covenant,  he  haih 
made  the  firft  old."  This  new  covenant  it  is  fuppofed  means 
the  covenant  of  grace,  on  which  the  Chriftian  church  is  built  ; 
therefore  it  is  concluded,  that  the  Hebrew  church  could  not 
be  founded  on  this  covenant,  and  fo  muft  be  materially  dif- 
ferent from  the  Chriftian. 

In  anfwer  to  this  objeflion  it  may  be  obferved, 
I  ft.  Granting  this  new  covenant  to  be  the  covenant  of 
grace,  on  which  the  Chriftian  church  is  built,  can  this  covenant 
be  m'w  in  this  fenfe,  that  it  was  never  revealed  to  m.ankind 
before  the  eftaWiftiment  of  the  Chriftian  church  ?  Iffo,  then 
all,  who  lived  before  this  period,  fuch  as  Enoch,  Noah,  Abra- 
harn,  Mofes,  &c.  were  loft  ;  for  none  can  be  faved  but  by  a 
compliance  with  the  covenant  of  grace.  But  who  that  be- 
lieve the  fcriptures,  can  fuppofe  this  r  Befides,  the  apoftle  ex- 
prefsly  declares  that  the  gofpel,  which  certainly  contains  the 
covenant  of  grace,  was  preached  unto  Abraham,  and  that  the 
promife  to  him  was  "  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by  grace.'* 
And  this  clearly  proves,  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  on 
•^hich  the  Hebrew  church  was  founded,  was  the  covenant  of 
grace.  And  this  is  further  evident  from  the  confideration 
♦hat  God  made  the  fame  promife  ro  Abraham  and  the  He- 
brew church,  which  he  makes  in  this  new  covenant.  He  pro- 
mifed  Abraham  to  be  his  God  ;  and  to  the  Hebrew  church 
he  fays,  Excd.  vi.  7,  "  I  will  take  you  to  me  for  a  people,  and 
i  will  be  to  you  a  God." 

So  in  this  new  covenant  he  fays  "  I  will  be  to  them  a  God, 
and  they  fhall  be  to  me  a  people."  It  is  evident  then  from 
thefe  confideraticns,  that  the  covenant  of  grace,  being  here 
called  T.e'u)^  cannot  mein,  that  it  was  never  revealed  to  man- 
kind before  the  Chriftian  difpenfation.  Confequently  it  af- 
fords no  proof,  that  the  x\brahamic  church,  which  practifed 
circurocifion,  was  not  built  on  the  covenant  of  grace,  or  was 
materially  different  from  the  Chriftian  church. 


(47) 

adlf'  It  may  be  noticed,  that  the  apoflle  in  this  paffage 
gives  clear  evidence,  that  he  did  not  mean  the  Abrahsmic 
covenant,  by  what  he  terms  the  eld  covenant.  For  God  de- 
clares that  this  new  covenant  ihall  be,  "  Not  according  to  the 
covenant,  that  he  made  with  their  fathers  ia  the  day  when  he 
took  them  by  theihand  to  lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt." 
This  ihows,  that  by  what  is  here  called  the  old  CQvenanti  is 
meant  that  covenant,  which  was  made  with  Ifrael  at  Mount 
Sinai,  called  the  Law  or  the  Mofaic  difpenfaiion,  which'  in- 
cluded the  ceremonial  laws  and  inftitutions,  and  all  thofe  types 
and  lh:idovvs,  that  pointed  to  Chrift  aud  gofpel  truths.  But 
this  legal  or  Mofaic  difpsnfation  was  entirely  diftind  from 
that  difpenfacion  of  the  covenant,  which  God  made  with 
Abraham  when  he  fet  up  his  vifible  church  in  his  family  ;  as 
ise/identfrom  Gal.  iii.  17,  18.  For  fpeaking  of  the  pronriife 
to  Abraham  and  his  feed,  the  apoftle  obferves,  ««  And  this  I 
fay,  that  the  covenant  that  was  confirmed  before  God  m  Chrift, 
the  law  [or  Mofaic  difpe«fation]  which  was  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  after,  cannot  difannul,  that  it  Ihould  make  the 
promife  ofnoneeffe<a.  For  if  the  inheritance  be  of  the  law, 
it  is  no  more  of  promife  :  but  God  gave  it  to  Abraham  by 
promife."-  If  therefore  it  Ihould  be  allowed,  that  what  is 
here  termed  the  old  covenant,  made  with  the  Ifraelites  at 
Mount  Sinai,  was  not  the  covenant  of  grace  ;  yet  this  would 
be  no  proof,  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  war.  not,  fmce  a^ 
has  been  fbown,  thefe  two  covenants  were  entirely  diftinft. 
But  ftili  it  might  be  (hown,  were  it  neceflfary,  that  even  the 
Mofaic  difpenfation  or  Sinai  covenant,  did  contain  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  obfcurely  revealed  by  types  and  emblems 
which  pointed  to  Chrift,  and  dire<fted  the  faith  of  the  Ifraelites 
to  him  for  falvation.  Thus  the  numerous  facrifices,  enjoined 
in  that  difpenfation,  pointed  diredly  to  the  atonement  or  fa- 
crifice  of  Chrift,  taught  them  their  need  of  his  blood,  and  that 
without  (bedding  of  blood  there  was  no  remiffion.  Their 
ceremonial  cleanfings  were  to  teach  them  their  need  of  inward 
purity  or  a  new  heart.  Thus  it  was  the  gofpel  or  covenant 
of  grace  under  typei  and  Ihadows.     But, 

It  may  be  enquired.  Why  the  covenant  of  grace,  under 
the  Chriftian  difpenfation  is  called  ne'vj,  if  it  is  efTentially  the 
fame  covenant,  which  was  revealed  to  Abraham,  and  upon 
which  the  Hebrew  church  was  built  ? 

3dly.  To  this  enquiry  it  may  be  anfwered,  that  the  difpen- 
fation of  the  covenant  of  grace  under  the  gofpei  is  tacw  and 
dtlFerent  from  the   former  di/peufatioos  19  this  feofe  ^    thac 


(48) 

it  Is  a  dirpenfation  attended  with  more  light .  and  fplrituality, 
in  which  the  great  truths  of  religion  are  more  clearly  reveal- 
ed, and  there  are  more  copious  effufions  of  the  fpirit  to  write 
the  divine  law  en  the  heart.  Under  th^  former  difpenfation 
thetruthsof  r?l;gicn~vere  but  obfcurely  revealed,  and  Utile 
underftood.  The  moft  of  the  Ifraehtes  appeared  to  have  but 
litttleidea  of  their  native  depravity,  and  of  the  nature  of  true 
religion,  or  of  what  God  required  of  them  in  his  covenant. 
Therefore  the  whole  nation  ufed  tf  enter  into  God's  covenant, 
and  profefs  religion,  uhile  few  of  them  peihaps  had  any  real 
piety.  Of  courCe  being  deflitute  of  religion  "  they  continued 
not  in  God's  covenant,"  into  which  they  profefTed  to  enter  ; 
but  openly  apoftatized  and  fell  into  wickednefs  and  idolatry. 
But  faulting  them  for  their  breaking  his  covenant,  God  de- 
clares by  his  prophet  in  the  words,  quoted  by  the  apoftle, 
that  it  fhoald  not  be  fo  under  the  new  and  better  covenant  or 
difpenfation  which  was  coming  ;  but  that  he  would  put  his 
laws  into  their  mind,  and  write  them  in  their  hearts— would 
be  to  them  a  God,  and  that  all  ftiould  know  him  from  the 
leaft  to  the  greatefi.  1  hns  the  words  are  evidently  a  prophe- 
cy concerning  ice  gofpel  difpenfation,  Ihov.ing,  that  k  would 
be  new  and  different  in  many  refpefts  from  the  Jewifti— -that 
it  would  be  more  fpiritual,  and  God's  law  would  be  more 
"pi'ritten  in  the  hearts  of  his  profeffing  people,  and  that  the 
time  would  come  under  that  difpenfation,  tvhen  all  fhould 
know  the  Lord  ;  as  we  expeft  will  be  the  cafe  in  the  Millen- 
ulum.  But  it  is  manifeft,  tliat  this  prophecy  or  declaration 
has  never  yet  been  fully  verified.  The  covenant  of  grace 
then  under  the  gofpel  difpenfation  is  new  in  much  the  fame 
fem'e,  that  tlie  command  of  our  Saviour  was,  when  h«  faid, 
A  new  command  give  I  unto  you,  that  ye  love  one  another." 
None  can  with  truth  aflSrm,  tliat  this  command  was  never  re- 
vealed before.  For  it  was  exprefsly  enjoined  by  God  upon 
his  ancient  church.  For  the  fum  of  the  fecond  table  of  ths 
moral  law,  given  by  Mofes,  as  explained  by  our  Saviour,  was 
"  Thju  (halt  love  thy  neigbour  as  thyfelf."  This  command 
then,  "  Ye  Ihall  love  one  another"  was  nriv  in  this  fenfe, 
that  it  was  now  more  clearly  and  plainly  enjoined  than  betore. 
So  the  covenant  of  grace  under  the  gofj-el  may  be  called  a 
;?£^cw  and  bstter  covenant ;  becaufe  it  is  a  n>uch  more  clear  and 
full  difpenfation  of  the  great  truths  of  leiis  ion,  and  is  at- 
tended with  more  fpirituality.  And  ihofe  rites  and  ceremo- 
nies,, which  were  blended  with  the  Mofaic  difpenfation  of  the 
covcr/.int  of  £'  ace,  and  which  did   tut  oufcurely  teach   the 


(49) 

truths  of  the  gofpel,  did  indeed  wax  old,  and  vanifii  away  be- 
fore the  clearer  light  o  f  the  Chriftian  difpenfation.  But  ftill 
it  is  no  proof,  that  the  Hebrew  church  was  not  the  fame  as 
the  ChriHian,  becaufe  it  was  divine  truth  in  a  more  obfcure 
manner,  as  has  been  already  fhown.  As  well  might  we  con- 
clude, that  a  man  is  not  the  fame  perfon,  he  was  when  a 
child  ;  becaufe  he  is  now  governed  and  inftrufted  in  a  dif- 
ferent manner  from  what  he  then  was. 

Obj.  6.  The  Abrahamic  covenant  cannot  be  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  ;  becaufe  God  fays  of  it,  Gen.  xvii.  14.  "My 
covenant  fhallb»in  yourflefli."  But  the  covenant  of  grace, 
it  is  concluded,  cannot  be  in  the  flefh, 

Ans.  All  allow,  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  promifed 
the  land  of  Canaan,  and  various  other  blefilngs.  But  none 
can  rationally  fuppofe  that  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  thefe  other 
bleffings  were  put  into  the  fle(h  of  a  child,  when  he  was  cir- 
cHmcifed  ;  and  that  the  covenant  was  thus  literally  in  their 
flefti  ?  This  would  be  quite  as  abfurd  as  to  fuppofe  w^ith  rhc 
Papifts,  that  we  literally  eat  the  flefti  or  body  of  Chrift» 
when  partaking  of  the  Lord's  fupper  ;  becaufe  he  faid  in  the 
inftitution,  "  Take,  cat,  this  is  my  body."  But  if  the  cove- 
nant could  not  be  literally  in  thfeir  fiefli,  wh  at  can  be  the 
meaning  of  the  paflage  ?  It  is  clearly  explained  in  but  the 
fecond  preceding  verfe.  **  Ye  fhall  circumcife  the  flefti  of 
your  foreskin,  and  it  JJjall  be  the  token  of  the  covenant  betwixt 
me  and  you."  Here  we  are  taught  that  circumcifion  is  the 
tokenof  the  covenant.  When  therefore  it  is  faid,  that  the 
covenant  "  fhall  be  in  your  flefh"  it  evidently  means  that 
circumcifion  the  token  of  the  covenant  fliould  be  in  their  flefti. 
And  fines  the  paffage  is  thus  clearly  explained  in  a  prece- 
ding verfe,  it  is  ftrange  that  any  could  ever  think  of  under- 
ilanding  it  literally,  or  could  imagine,  that  it  afforded  any 
evidence,  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  not  the  covenant 
of  grace.  Hov/  can  it  be  any  evidence,  that  this  was  not  the 
covenant  of  grace,  becaufe  the  token  of  it  was    in  the  flefh  ? 

Tht:  Baptills  therafelves  fuppofe,  that  baptifm  is  a  token  of 
faith  ;  and  thus  it  is  a  token  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  or  of 
an  aiTsnt  to  it.  Baptifm  then  is  now  a  token  of  God's  cove- 
nant on  the  flsfh,  as  circumcifion  was  a  token  of  it  in  the  flefh. 
No  reafon  therefore  can  be  given,  why  the  one  may  not  be 
a  token  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  as  well  as  the  other. 

But  it  is  objeded  by  fome  of  the  baptifls,  that  the  cove- 
n.mt  cf  grace  is  fomething  internal  or  fpiritual,  and  therefore 
there  car;  b°  no  eicrsrnai  token  of  it. 


In  anfwer  to  this  it  may  be  obferred,  that  by  the  teken  of 
a  covenant  is  meant  fome  token  or  fign,  by  which  we  vifibly 
give  our  aifent  to  it.  And  furely  God  can  appoint  a  token 
or  fign,  which  may  be  a  vifible  token  of  our  faith,  or  affent 
to  the  covenant  of  grace.  And  if  fo,  there  may  be  a  vifible 
or  external  token  of  this  covenant.  Yea,  the  Baptifts  thenr;- 
felves  muft  allow,  that  a  profeffion  and  baptifm  in  adults  are 
vifible  figns  or  tokens  cf  faith  or  grace  in  the  heart,  and  fc 
of  fomething  internal  and  fpiritual.  And  whatever  is  a  to- 
ken of  faith  is  in  faft  a  token  of  an  afTent  to  the  covenant  of 
grace.  Therefore  the  objedion,  that  there  can  be  no  vifible 
token  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  is  evidently  without  any  foun- 
dation. 

What  has  been  faid  alfo  fhows  the  abfurdity  of  calling  the 
Abrahamic  coveaant  a  flefhly  covenant,  as  many  of  the  Bap- 
tifts do  ;  becaufe  circumcifion  tire  token  of  it  was  in  the  flefii. 
We  may  withjuft  as  much  propriety  call  the  covenant  of 
grace  under  the  Chriftian  difpenfation  a  fleflily  covenant,  be- 
caufe baptifm  is  new  a  token  on  the  flefh.  Or  we  may  as 
well  call  any  covenant,  a  waxen  covenant,  becaufe  the  feal 
of  it  is  imprefled  upon  wax. 

Obj.  7th.  Real  religion  was  not  required  in  God's  co- 
venant with  his  ancient  church  or  as  the  condition  of  their 
being  his  church  or  people,  as  it  is  of  the  Chriftian  church ; 
becaufe  God  called  them  his  people,  at  times,  when  they 
were  very  degenerate  and  corrupt,  and  but  very  few  amon^ 
them  had  any  real  religion.  But  it  is  concluded,  that  he 
could  not  confidently  do  this,  had  real  holinefs  been  required 
in  the  covenant  or  conftitution  of  that  church. 

Ans.  The  Lord  Jefus  in  his  epiftles  to  the  feven  churches 
of  Afia,  addreffes  them  as  his  churches,  although  fome  of 
them  Vv-ere  very  corrupt,  and  tolerated  idolatry,  fornication, 
and  other  grofs  vices.  When  he  addrefied  the  moft  corrupt  of 
them,  and  reproved  and  threatened  them,  ftill  he  called  them 
his  churches  as  much  as  he  did  the  moft  pure  of  them.  Thus 
headdruired  the  chiirch  of  Sardis  as  being  his  church,  altho' 
he  told  them,  that  they  had  a  name  to  live,  but  were  dead  ; 
and  that  there  were  but  few  of  them,  who  were  not  defiled  ; 
leprefenting,  ti^at  they  were  generally  deftitute  cf  real  reli- 
gion or  fpiritual  life.  The  Laodicean  church  is  rcprefented 
ftill  more  degenerate— as  being  fpiritually  poor,  wretthed, 
miferable,  blind  and  naked,  which  muft  certainly  imply,  that 
they  were  generally  in  a  ftate  of  fm.  Yet  they  were  addref. 
fed  as  being  a  chuich  of  tlnilt,  as  much    as   any  one  of  the 


(  St  ) 

fpvsn.  We  might  therefore  as  well  argue  from  this,  that 
teal  religion  is  not  now  required  by  Cliritl,  as  a  term  of  mem- 
berfliip  in  his  church  ;  as  v/e  can,  that  it  was  not  rpquired  in 
God's  ancient  church,  becaafe  God  called  them  his  people, 
when  generally  corrupt.  Chrift  might  confrllently  addref-; 
thefc  churches  as  being  his,  although  corrupt  ;  becaafe  they 
profcfTed  to  be  /^is.  iao  the  Jews  might  confiftently  be  cal- 
led God's  church  or  people,  as  they  profclFsd  to  be  his,  ai- 
though  generally  corrupt  and  deftitute  of  religion.  When 
they  grew  degenerate,  God  was  continually  reproving,  warn- 
ing and  threatening  them  by  his  prophets,  and  chaflifiag  them 
rvith  judgments  for  feveral  hundred  years  ;  tiii  iJie  whole  na- 
tionwere  finally  dcftroyed  or  captivated  by  Nebuchadnezzar. 
Alfo  when  they  became  degenerate  after  their  return  from 
Babylon,  God  waited  upon  them  many  years,  reproved  and 
warned  them  by  John  the  Babtift^  Chrift,  and  his  apoflles, 
Lill  at  length  they  were  broken  off  from  his  church  and 
wretchedly  deftroyed.  So  Chrift  warned  and  threatened  his 
churches  in  Afia,  and  waited  upon  them  and  chaftifiid  them 
ior  feveral  hundred  years.  But  as  they  grew  more  and  mora 
corrupt,  he  finally  deftroyed  them,  and  removed  their  can,. 
dleftick  out  of  his  place- 
Thus  God's  treatment  of  them  in  many  refpefls  was  very 
fimilar  to  his  treatment  of  his  ancient  church,  and  fo  it  corro- 
borates the  evidien'SC)  that  Uj.ey  ar«  eifentially  tlie  fame. 


(52) 


SERMON  IIL 


HAVING,  as  it  is  appreliendefl,  fully  proved,  that  the 
Jewifh  and  Chriftian  church  is  the  fame,  and  ah'b  ob- 
viated the  moft  weighty  and  plaufible  cbjedions  ;  it  is  pro- 
pofed, 

III.     To  make  applicatiorl  of  the  fnbje<S  irt  proof  of  the 
duty  of  infant-baptifm. 

I  ft.  It  is  abundantly  evident  from  oar  fubje(5l,  that  the 
Jewifh  and  Chriftian  curch  is  the  fame,  and  that  believing' 
Gentiles  ate  grafFed  into  the  fame  church,  or  olive-tree,  from 
tvhich  the  unbelieving  Jews  were  broken  off.  It  is  alfo  unde- 
niably manifeft,  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  a  covenant 
of  grace,  and  that  circumcifion,  the  token  of  this  covenant^ 
was  a  feal  or  token  of  the  faith  of  believers.  It  is  further  evi. 
dent,  that  all  the  members  of  God's  ancient  church  were  di- 
reded  t®  circumcife  their  chidren  and  houfeholds,  and  thus  to 
apply  this  token  of  the  covenant  of  grace  and  feal  of  their 
faith  to  their  childien,  as  well  as  to  themfelves-  If  therefore 
the  Chriftian  church  is  the  fame  v;tth  God's  ancient  church 
— is  but  the  continuation  of  that  church  under  a  new  difpe  n- 
fation  ;  ought  not  the  members  of  it  now  to  apply  the  feal  of 
their  faith,  or  the  token  of  the  covenant  of  grace  to  their 
children,  as  the  members  of  God's  ancient  church  were  direc- 
ted to  do,-  unlefs  there  is  fome  command  or  diredion  to  the 
contrary  ?  Have  they  any  warrant  to  negledl  this  duty,  which 
God  has  once  enj-oined  upon  his  church  without  fome  direc- 
tion er  intimation  from  him  ?  But  no  one  can  pretend,  that  any 
fuch  command  or  intimation  can  befound  inthe  bible,  directing 
the  members  of  God's  church  not  to  apply  the  token  of  his 
covenant,  or  feal  of  their  faith  to  their  children,  as  he  has  once 
commanded  them.  What  right  then  have  they  to  neglect 
this  duty,  which  has  been  once  enjoined,  and  never  revoked  ? 
A  command  once  given  by  God,  ftands  in  full  force,  until 
revoked.  Thus  God  commanded  the  ancient  church  to  keep 
one  day,  in  feven,  as  a  holy  fabbath.  And  as  he  has  never 
revoked  this  command,  it  is  as  bincfeg  upon  us,  as  it  was  up- 
on them,  Altho'  the  day  is  changed  from  thefeventh  to  the 
fiift,  ftill  this  docs  not  difannul  the  command  of  keeping  one 


(53) 

fevertth  part  of  time  hf)Iy.  So  God  alfo  commanded  his  an« 
cient  churcli  to  put  the  token  of  his  covenant,  or  of  their 
faith  upon  their  children,  as  well  as  upon  themfelve?,  and 
has  never  revoked  this  command.  Therefore  the  command 
is  as  binding  upon  us,  as  it  was  upon  them.  Akho'  this  to- 
ken or  feal  is  changed  from  circumcifion  to  baptifm,  ftill  it  ne 
more  dilannals  the  command  to  put  it  upon  infants  ;  than 
the  change  of  the  fabbath  from  the  fcventh  to  the  fird  day, 
difannuls  the  command  to  keep  one  day  in  feven  as  a  holy 
fiibbath. 

Had  circumcifion  continued  to  be  the  feal  or  token  of  the 
faith  of  believers  in  the  Chriftian  church,  as  it  was  in  the 
Jewifh,  and  had  the  command  to  the  apoftles  been,  "  Go, 
teach  ail  nations,  oircumciling  them  in  the  name  of  the  fa- 
ther, Szc."  no  perfon  cculd  ever  have  iufpedcd,  that  tliis 
"  feal  of  ihe  lighteoufnefs  of  faith"  was  not  to  be  applied  to  the 
children  of  believers  or  profeifors,  as  it  ufed  to  be  before  the 
coming  of  Chrirt.  If  therefore  it  can  be  fhown,  that  there  is 
now  and  ordinance  in  God's  church  under  the  Chriftian  dif- 
penfation,  which  in  its  deiign  and  import  anfvvers  to  circum- 
cifion ;  the  evidence  will  be  very  itrong  and  conclufive,  that  it 
cugiitto  be  applied  to  children,  as  circumcifion  was  ;  unlefs 
there  is  fome  diredion  to  the  contrary.  But  does  not  baptifm 
ia  Its  import  and  defign  evidently  anfvver  to  circumcifion  in 
God's  ancient  church,  as  has  been  already  fhown. 

I  ft.  Circumcifion  was  a  token  of  the  covenant  of  grace 
between  God,  and  thofe  who  applied  it  to  themfelves  or 
children,  and  was  a  feal  or  token  of  their  faith,  or  of  their 
affent  to  this  covenant.  So  baptifm  is  now  a  feal  or  token  of 
tiie  faith  of  believers,  and  thus  it  is  a  token  of  the  covenant  of 
'^race,  of  which  faith  is  the  condition.  It  is  therefore  a  to- 
ken of  the  covenant  between  God,  and  thofe  who  apply  it  to 
themfelves  or  children,  juft  as  circumcifion  was  in  God's  an- 
cienr  church. 

2ndly.  As  circumcifion  was  a  feal  or  token  of  faith  and  of 
the  covenant  of  grace,  no  one  without  faith  coaid  have  any 
right  to  it,  either  forhimfelfor  children.  Accordingly  "  A- 
biaham  received  the  fign  of  circumcifion,  a  feal  of  the  right- 
eoufnefs  of  the  faith,  which  he  had  yet  being  uncircumcifcd  ;" 
fhowing,  he  firil  beheved,  and  then  circimcifed  himfelf  and 
houfehold  in  token  of  his  faith  ;  and  fo  that  faith  was  the  con- 
dition of  circumcifion.  When  therefore  any  heathen  wiflied  to 
be  admitted  to  the  JevviHi  church  or  ordinances,  he  fir/l   pro- 


{  54  j 

TctTed  his  faith  in  the  God  of  Ifrael,  before  he  or  his  farAiTf 
were  circumcifed. 

»So  Philip  told  the  Eunuch,  that  he  might  he  baptized,  if 
he  believed  with  all  his  heart  ;  which  fiiows,that  faith  is  the 
condition  of  baptifm,  as  it  was  of  circumcifion,  and  that  no 
perfons  therefore  have  a  right  to  baptifra  for  themfelves  or 
tbildren,  until  they  firft  profefs  their  faith. 

jdly.  Circumcifion  denoted  the  natural  corruption  of  man» 
kind,  and  the  neceffity  of  a  renovation  of  heart :  fo  baptifm 
ftrikingly  reprefents  our  natural  pollution,  and  need  of  being 
renewed  or  cleanfed  by  the  wafhing  of  regeneration. 

4thly.  Circumcifion  might  point  to  tlje  blood  of  Chrift, 
and  be  defigned  to  lead  the  Hebrew  church  to  feel  the  necef- 
fity  of  the  (bedding  of  blood  for  the  remifllon  of  fm. 

So  baptifm  is  nov/  calculated  to  imprefs  us  with  a  fenfe  of 
the  neceffity  of  being  fprinkled  with  the  blood  of  the  Redee- 
mer, that  blood  of  fprinkling,  which  cleanfeth  from  all  fm, 
as  the  only  ground  of  pardon  an  juftification. 

Finally,  as  circumcifion  was  the  door  of  admiffion  into 
Chrift's  ancient  church  in  the  fenfe,  that  no  one  could  become 
a  member  of  it,  and  attended  upon  its  ordinances,  unlefs  cir- 
cumcifed ;  fo  now  no  perfon  can  rightfully  become  a  mem- 
ber of  Chrift's  church,  or  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  unlefs 
baptized. 

It  is  abundantly  evident  from  thefe  obfervations,  that  the 
meaning  and  dcfign  ©f  circumcifion  and  baptifm  are  eflfential- 
iT  the  fame  ;  and  that  baptifm  anfwers  the  fame  ciads  in  the 
Chriftian  church,  as  circumcifion  did  in  the  Jewifli,  If  there- 
fore baptifm  in  its  import  and  defign  does  thus  anfwer  to 
circumcifion — is  now  the  token  of  the  faith'  of  believers,  and 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,  as  circumcifion  was  under  the  Jewifii 
Jifpenfation  ;  then  it  is  certain,  that  baptifm  does  now  ftand 
infi.ead  of  circumcifion.  Confequently  it  ought  to  be  applied 
to  children  of  believers  or  profefTurs,  as  circumcifion  was ; 
fince  God  has  given  no  command  or  diredion  to  the  con- 
trary. 

Further,  in  that  covenant,  which  God  made  with  Abra- 
ham, and  which  conftituted  him  the  father  of  all  that  believe, 
God  fays  to  him  Gen.  xvii.  9,  and  lo.  "Thou  {halt  keep  my 
covenant  therefore,  thou,  and  thy  feed  after  thee,  in  their  gen- 
ci  atirns.  This  is  my  covenant  which  ye  Ihall  keep  between 
jue  and  you,  and  thy  feed  after  thee  ;  every  man-child  among 
you  fliiiil  be  circumcifed."  Here  is  a  plain  command,  that 
the  feed  of  Abraham  after  him  in  their  generations  fhould  keep 


(55) 

covenant  with  God  by  applying  the  totcen  of  God's  covenant 
and  the  feal  of  their  faith  to  their  natural  children.  But  by 
the  feed  here  in  this  covenant  is  meant  more  efpecially  his 
fpiritual  feed.  For  the  apoftle  fays,  "  If  ye  be  Chrift's  then 
are  ye  Abraham's  feed  and  heirs  according  to  the  promife," 
Tcferring  to  the  promife  in  this  covenant  that  God  would  be  a 
God  to  him  and  his  feed  after  him.  Since  therefore  believers 
are  the  feed  of  Abraham,  refpedted  in  this  covenant,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  command,  "  Thou  fhalt  keep  my  covenant 
therefore,  thou  and  thy  feed  after  thee  in  their  generations,'* 
rauft  be  binding  upon  them.  And  fincc,  as  has  been  fhown, 
baptifm  does  anfwer  to  circumcilion,  as  a  token  of  the  fame 
covenant  of  grace,  and  has  come  in  its  ftead,  are  not  believers, 
the  true  feed  of  Abraham,  as  much  commanded  to  keep  God's 
covenant  by  applying  the  token  of  it  to  their  children,  as  he 
was  ?  For  the  command  vyas  as  exprefs  to  his  feed  after  him  in 
their  generations,  as  it  was  to  him.  Accordingly  when  any 
of  the  heathen  joined  themfelves  to  God's  ancient  church,  and 
thus  profefledly  became  the  feed  of  Abraham,  they  obferved 
this  command  by  ci  re umcidng  their  children. 

Is  there  not  therefore  a  plain  command,  which  has  nerer 
been  revoked,  that  believers,  or  tliofe  who  enter  into  God's  co- 
venant, and  profefs  to  be  the  feed  of  Abraham,  fiiould  apply 
the  token  of  their  faith  and  of  this  covenant  to  their  children  ? 
Do  not  thofe  then,  who  negled  this  command,  negleft  a 
plain  command  of  God  ?  .Had  circumcifion  continued  to  be 
the  feal  of  the  faith  of  believers  in  the  Chriftian  church,  as  it 
was  in  the  Jewifh  ;  all  mult  allow,  that  it  onght  to  be  applied 
to  children,  as  it  ufcd  to  be.  Since  therefore  baptifm  does 
now  anfwer  to  circumcifiQn,  or  ftand  inftead  of  it,  is  it  not  as 
certain,  that  it  ought  to  be  applied  to  children  ;  as  tho'  cir- 
cumcifion  had  ftill  continued  to  be  the  feal  of  the  believer's 
faith  ?  In  this  view  of  the  fubjeft  is  not  the  proof  of  the  duty 
of  infant-baptifm  from  circumcifion  very  clear  and  conclu- 
five  ?  Yea,  is  it  not  unanfwerable,  unlefs  it  can  be  (hown,  ei- 
ther th.it  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  not  the  covenant  of 
grace — That  the  Jewifh  church  was  not  effentially  the  fame 
as  the  ChrLiliaa,  and  that  believing  Gentiles  are  not  the  it^<^ 
ai  Abraham  and  were  not  graffed  into  the  fame  church  or 
olive  tree,  from  which  the  unbelieving  Jev/s  were  broken  off; 
or  elfe  that  baptifm  is  not  the  feal  or  token  of  the  believer's 
fitiih,  and  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  as  circumcifion  was  ;  or 
elfe  .that  God  has  direvfted  his  church  not  to  apply  the  feal  ef 
ificir  fiith  to  their  children,  as  he   once  commanded  thorn  : 


(56) 

Unlels  one  of  thefe  things  can  be  fiiown,  the  evidence  in  fa. 
vor  of  infant-baptifm  appears  conclufive  and  unanfweraWe. 
But  that  no  one  can  do  either  of  thefe,  it  is  apprehended,  muft 
be  evident  to  every  candid  mind,  who  attentively  confiders 
what  has  been  fuggefted  from  the  fcriptures  on  this  fubje<S'. 
And  virould  our  Baptifts  but  view  the  fubjeft  with  coolnefs 
£.nd  candor,  and  confider,  that  to  invalidate  this  proof,  it  is 
not  fufiicient  merely  to  urge  a  few  plaufible  objeftions  ;  but 
that  they  muft  fairly  prove,  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was 
not  the  covenant  of  grace,  that  believing  Gentiles  were  not 
graffed  into  the  fame  church,  from  which  the  unbelieving 
Jews  were  broken  off,  and  that  baptifm  is  not  the  *'  feal  of 
the  righteoufnefs  of  faith"  as  circumcifion  w?s  ;  it  would  feem 
that  they  couidnot  perfift  in  denying  the  duty  of  infant-bap- 
tifm. For  until  they  can  fairly  prove  thefe  things,  they  muft 
let,  that  tlie  proof  in  favor  of  this  dodrine  ftands  firm.* 

•  This  proof  of  infant-baptifm,  from  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  may  de- 
rive additional  evidence  from  the  apoftle's  allegory,  Gal.  iv.  23,29.  Here 
he  confiders  Abraham's  two  wives  and  their  fons,  as  an  allegorical  reprsfenta- 
tioii  of  the  Abrahamic  and  Mofalc  covenants.  *'  Which  things,"  fsys  he, 
♦*  are  an  allegory  }  for  thefe  are  the  two  covenants  j"  the  one  from  Mount 
Sinai,  which  is  Agar  or  Hagar,  Vcrfe  24.  By  the  two  covenants  muft 
be  meant  the  Abrahamic  and  Sinai  or  Mofaic  covenants,  of  which  the 
apoftle  had  been,  particularly,  difcourfing  in  the  preceding  part  of  this 
epiftle. 

At  Sarah  was  firft  \yife  to  Abraham  ;  fo  the  Abrahamic  covenant  wai 
fifft  thcconftitution  or  bafi&  ofGod's  ancient  vifible  church.  And  as  Ha- 
gar afterwards  became  his  wife  with  Sarah  ;  fo  the  Sinai  or  Mofaic  covenant 
was  afterwards  fuperadded  to  the  Abrahamic,  as  the  conftiturion  of  this 
church.  But  after  a  while,  Hagar  and  her  fon  were  caft  out.  So  at  the 
death  of  Chrift,  the  Mofaic  difpc  nfation  v;as  abolished,  and  the  unbelieving 
Jews,  who  clung  to  this,  and  rejefled  the  gofpel,  were  caft  out,  like  the 
bondmaid  and  her  fon — They  were,  thro'  unbelief,  broken  off  from  the 
olive-tree,  or  the  church  of  God. — And  a<;  Sarah  remained  alone  the  wife 
of  Abraham,  after  the  expulficn  of  Hagar  ;  fo,  after  the  abolition  cf  the 
Mofaic  difpenfation,  the  covenantor  promife  made  with  Abraham  becamt 
again  ii.c  only  conftitution  or  foundation  of  God's  vifible  church. 

Thert  is,  therefore,  according  to  this  allegory,  the  fame  evidence,  that 
the  Abrahamic  covenant  reirwined  the  foundation  of  the  Chriftian  church, 
after  the  abolition  of  the  Mufaic  difpenfation  ;  as  that  Sarah  continued 
Abraham's  wife,  after  that  Hapar  was  cart  out.— Thus  believing  Gentiles, 
are  grafted  into  the  fame  olive- tree,  from  which  the  unbelieving  Jews  weis 
broken  off,  partake  of  the  root  and  fatnefsof  the  olive-tree^  cr  enjoy  the 
bieflings  of  Abraham.  Therefore  the  apoHls  fays,  "  If  ye  be  Chrift's  ; 
then  are  ye  Abraham's  feed,  and  hciis  according  to  the  promifej"  And  he 
Cilis  Abraham  the  fatlier  of  ail,  who  believe. 

Since  therefore  the  Abtaha.nic  covenant  continues  now  to  be  the  ex-ter- 
r,a!  cor.fticution  or  foundation  of  the  Chriftian  churcfi,  and  believers  are 
now  Alriiham's  feed  ;  ou^ht  they  not  to  apply  tlie  token  of  this  covenani; 
citgrace,  01  the  fcai  of  the  righteoufnefs  of  fdith  to  their  children  ?  For  the. 


(57) 

II.  The  vievr,  which  has  now  been  taken  of*  our  fubje^, 
will  clearly  (how,  how  weak  and  inconckafive  many  of  the 
moll  plaufible  objeftions  and  arguments  are,  which  are  urged 
againft  infanl-baptifm. 

Objection  ift.  There  is  no  erprefs  command  for  infant- 
baptifm  in  the  New-Teftament ;  and  therefore  it  ought  not 
to  be  praSifed. 

Answer.  God  has  exprefsly  commanded thofe,  \tho  enter 
into  covenant  with  him,  and  thus  become  members  of  hi« 
church,  to  apply  the  token  of  this  covenant,  and  of  theirfaith 
to  their  children,  and  has  never  revoked  this  command.  This 
command  of  God  therefore  ftands  in  full  force,  confirmed  by 
the  pra6lice  of  his  ancient  church  for  feveral  thoufand  years. 
Confequently  it  was  unneceflary  for  him  to  repeat  this  com- 
mand to  his  church  in  the  New-Teftament.  As  the  apeftler. 
had  been  educated  in  the  Jewifli  church — had  always  feen  the 
members  of  this  church  put  the  token  of  the  covenant  and  of 
their  faith  upon  their  children,  and  had  alfo  feen  this  token 
applied  to  the  children  of  the  Heathen,  who  proiefled  their 
faith  in  Gk)d,  and  joined  his  church  ;  fo  they  would  natural- 
ly fuppofe,  that  the  feal  of  the  faith  of  believers  wa«  dill  to  be 
applied  to  their  children.  There  was  therefore  no  need  of 
commanding  them  anew  to  apply  the  feal  of  the  covenant  to 
the  children  of  believers.  For  they  would  have  had  no  idea 
ef  omitting  it  without  fome  diretftion  not  to  apply  it.  Thus 
when  the  apoftfes  were  commanded  to  "  Go  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them,'*  &c.  they  would  naturally  apply  the 
{eaioi'mc  rigliteoufaefs  of  faitli,  to  the  children  of  believers, 

comtnatid  is,  "Thoafljalt  keep  my  covenant,  thou,  and  thy  feed  aft«r 
tbee  j"  and  all  real  bslievtrs  are  in  a  peculiar  manner  the  feed  of  Abraham. 
If  then,  baptifm  is  nov/  the  feal  or  token  of  this  gracious  covenant  j  it  i\)~ 
pears,  that  all  real  chiiiTians  are  as  much  obligated  to  apply  it  to  their  chil- 
dren ;  as  the  Ifraelites  were  to  circurrcife  their's.— Hov/  can  this  argume;!!; 
be  evaded,  unlefs  it  can  Le  (hewn,  either  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  is 
difannulled,  andis  not  the  found-ticn  cf  iheChriftian  church;  or,  that  tlie 
command  to  apply  the  token  cf  ih«  covenant  to  children  is  revoked  ?  But  nei- 
ther of  thefe  can  be  proved  from  the  v/ord  of  God. 

Again.  We  are  taught,  Rom.  xi.  that  when  the  Jewifli  nation  <ln!l  be 
converted  to  Cliriftianity,  they  will  be  again  graffed  "into  their  own  olive- 
tree,"  or  be  received  into  che  fame  church,  from  which  they  were  broken 
off,  and  then  be  reftored  to  their  ancient  covenant  rclasion  to  God.  But 
will  they  not  then  apply  the  feal  or  token  of  God's  covenant  to  their  children, 
23  their  church  slw»)s  did,  from  its  firft  inititjtion  in  the  family  of  Abra- 
ham — and  efpecially  fince  the  covenant  with  their  father  Abraham  ftill  re- 
mains theconilitution  of  this. church,  into  v.hich  they  will  Le  received.  Sw- 
an fxpla.iation  of  :ht  fcripture  allegory  of  Sar?.h  tnd  H*g;.r  by  Rev.  Aaroc 
Rime. 


(58) 

as-well  asto  the  parents;  and  fo  would  baptize  both  parents 
and  children,  unlefs  they  had  fome  diredion  to  thscontrary. 
In  this  view  it  may  be. clearly  feen,  why  an  exprefs  command 
to  baptize  infants  was  unneceflary.  It  is  therefore  incumbent 
en  thofe  who  deny  tlie  duty  of  infant-baptifm,  to  produce 
feme  fcriptore,  which  diredls,  that  the  feal  of  the  believer's 
faith  fhall  not  be  applied  to  his  children,  as  it  ufed  to  be  in 
God's  ancient  church  ;  inftead  of  objeding  to  us  the  want  of 
a- command.  We  can  produce  a  command  of  God,  which 
exprefsly  enjoins  this  upon  his  church.  The  burden  of  proof 
therefore  lies  on  them  to  fhow,  that  God  has  revoked  this 
command,  or  given  a  contrary  diredlion.  The  feal  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  or  the  token  of  the  believer's  faith,  being 
cJianged  from  circumcifion,  to  baptifm,  no  more  difannuls 
the  command  to  apply  it  to  children^  than  the  change  of  the 
fabbath,.from  the  feventh  to  the  firft  day  of  the  week,  dilannuls 
die  command  to  keep  one  feventh  part  of  time  holy.  And 
we  can  fee  no  more  need  of  an  exprefs  command  for  infant- 
baptifm,  than  for  obferving  the  iirft  day  of  the  week  as  the 
fabbath.  If  therefore  the  want  of  an  exprefs  command  for 
infant-baptifm  is  a  proof,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  pradifed, 
rhen  we  ought  not  to  keep  the  firll  day  of  the  week  as  holy 
time,  fince  tliere  is  no  exprefs  command  for  it.  Neither  ought 
females,  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  fupper,  fince  there  is  no 
precept  or  example  for  it  in  tiie  New-Teftament.  Thefe  and 
many  other  duties,  which  may  be  clearly  prov:^"  from  fcrip- 
ture,  and  which  jiiany,  that  deny  infant-baptifm,  allow  to  be 
duties,  muft  be  given  up  .;  if  the  want  of  an  exprefs  command 
isafufficientreafon  againil  a  practice.  Thefe  confiderations 
clearly  Ihow  xhut  the  want  of  an  exprefs  command  for  infant- 
baptifm  is  no  proof  againft  it.  For  there  may  be  fufficient 
evidence  for  a  duty,  which  is  not  exprefsly  commanded. 

Otj.  2d.  Theie  is  no  account  or  example  of  infant-bap- 
tifm in  the  fcriptures- 

Ans.  Should  it  be  granted,  that  this  is  the  cafe  ;  yet  it 
would  be  no  proof,  tliat  infant-baptifm  was  not  pradifed* 
When  God  ccafed  from  the  work  oi  the  creation,  he  inftituted 
the  fabbath  by  bleffing  and  fanftifying  the  feventh  day.  But 
there  is  no  account  of  its  being  obferved  by  any  perfon,  nor  is 
it  even  mentioned  in  the  fcriptures  after  its  inftitution,  till  the 
time  of  Mofes,  which  was  about  2,500  years.  But  is  this  any 
proof  that  the  fabbath  was  never  obferved  during  this  long 
period  ;  and  can  we  fuppofe,  that  Err.  h,  Noah,  Abraham, 
and  tl;e  vOtb.er  pious  patriaixhs   lived  in  the  enti-e    Heg^Iedt  of 


(f9) 

this  command  of  God  ;  merely  becaufe  we  have  no  account  of 
their  obferving  the  fabbath  ?  There  is  no  account,  that  a  (la- 
r;le  member  of  the  church  in  Theirjlonica  wac  ever  baeti/ed  ; 
but  is  this  any  proof,  that  they  were  all  unbaptized  ?  Or  is  ic 
a.ny- preofj  that  no  Ifraelites  were  circumciltd  from  the  days 
of  fofhua  till  the  birth  of  John  the  Eapliil ;  becaufe  we  have  no 
account  of  the  circumcifion  of  any  during  that  period  i  Theia 
confiderations  Ihow,  that,  fuppofmg  there  was  no  account  of 
the  baptifm  of  any  children  or  houfeholds  on  il^e  faith  of  the 
parent  or  head  of  the  family  |.  If  ill  this  would  be  no  pVoof, 
that  none  were  thus  baptized.  When  there  is  futncienc  evi- 
dence of  a  divine  inftitution,  there  being  no  account  of  its  be- 
ing praftifed,  is  no  proof  at  all  againll  it.  The  v/ant  of  fuch 
an  account  is  mere  negative  evidence,  and  therefore,  can  have 
no  weight  againft  pofitive  proof. 

But  further,  it  cannot  with  truth  be  a(?erted,  that  there  is  no 
example  in  the  New-Teftament,  where  baptifm  was  adminis- 
tered to  the  children  or  houfehold  on  account  of  the  faith  of 
the  parent  or  head.  For  the  houfehold  of  Lydia  were  bap- 
ti/.ed  with  her,  altho'  there  is  no  account,  that  any  of -them  be- 
lieved ;  as  is  evideat  from  the  hiftory  of  the  tranfadlion,  re- 
corded, Adis  xvi.  14,  15.  "And  a  certain  woman  named 
Lydia,:  a  feller  of  purple,  of  the  eity  of  Thy  atira,  which  wor- 
fliipped  God,  heard  us  ;  whofe  heart  the  Lord  opened,  that 
Ihe  attended  unto  the  things  w^hich  were  fpoken  of  Paul.  And 
when  fhe  was  baptized,  and  her  houfehold,  (he  befought  us, 
laying,  If  ye  have  judged'me*  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord, 
come  into  my  houfe  and  abide  there.  And  (he  conftrained 
us."  It  appears  from  this  account,  that  Lydia  was  of  Thya^ 
tira,  originated  from  that  city,  but  jaow  lived  with  her  houfe^ 
hold  or  family  in  Philippi  ;  where  fhe  bad  a  houfe,  ia  which 
fhe  lodged  the  apoftle  for  fome  time.  Whether  Lydia  was  a 
widow,  or  had  never  been  married,  or  whether  her  hulband 
was  not  mentioned,  becaufe  abfent  or  not  a  believer,  is  im- 
material. It  is  certain,  that  fhe  had  a  family  or  houfehold* 
And  whether  her  family  confided  of  fervants,  or  children,  or 
both,  is  of  no  confequence  to  the  argument.  For  the  ikory 
reprefents,  that  they  were  baptized  upon  her  faith,  and  gives 
not  the  leafc  intimation,  that  any  one  of  them  believed.  This 
exaftly  correfponds  with  the  praflice  of  God's  ancient  church. 

*  If  ere  it  may  he  noticed^  that  the  sayr,  if ys  have  judged  me,  [_nof 
Wy  hoiisshoW^to  he  faithful  crfmcere  in  my  profcijion,  bV.  Docs 
Kit  thii  intimate,  that  the  akns  frsfjsed  to  be  faithful  or  fiom  .-' 


(6o) 

Thus  when  Abraham  enteicd  into  covenant  with  God,  he  pur 
circumcifion,  the  feal  of  his  faith  upon  his  fon  and  upon  all 
the  males  of  his  houfehold,  as  well  as  upon  hirrfelf.  And 
when  any  heathen  became  a  profelyte  and  profelled  his  faith 
in  God  ;  the  feal  of  the  covenant  was  put  both  upon  him- 
felf  and  houfehold.  So  when  the  Lord  opened  Lydia's  heart 
and  (he  believed  and  entered  into  covenant  with  God  ;  (he 
•was  baptized,  and  her  houfehold  ;  and  thus  the  feal  of  her 
faith  was  applied  to  them  as  well  as  to  herfelf.  How  exaflly 
then  does  the  praSice  of  the  apoftle  in  this  example  correfponi 
with  the  praffice  of  God's  ancient  church,  into  which  the 
believing  Gentiles  were  graffed  ? 

But  the  Baptifts,  anxious  to  wreft  away  this  example  which 
lies  againft  tham,  urge,  that  her  houfehold  were  all  adult 
believers  ;  becaufe  it  is  faid  in  the  la  ft  verfe  of  the  chapter, 
**  And  they  went  out  of"  the  prifon,  and  entered  into  thie  houfe 
ofLydia:  and  when  they  had  feen  the  brethren,  they  com- 
forted them  and  departed."  Upon  this  it  may  be  obferved, 
thtit  the  apoftles  had  been  preaching  many  days  in  this  city 
after  the  converfion  of  Lydia,  and  had  made  many  convarts  j 
for  we  find  by  the  epitlle  to  the  Philippians,  that  there  was  a 
church  in  this  city  with  bifiiops  and  deacons.  Btic  at  length 
being  beaten  and  call  into  prifon,  they  were,  when  rcleafed 
from  prifon,  defued  to  depart  out  of  the  city.  They  therefore 
returned  to  the  houfe  of  Lydia,  where  they  had  refided  ;  and 
when  they  had  feen  the  brethren  or  converts,  who  would  un- 
doubtedly colle(5l  to  fee  them  before  their  departure,  they 
comforted  ihem,  and  departed.  Now  here  is  not  the  leaft  in- 
timation, that  by  thefe  brethren  were  meant  the  houfehold  of 
Lydia,  or  that  this  houfoWd  v/ere  all  believers.  It  appears 
then,  after  all  that  can  be  laid  on  the  fubjeft,  that  there  is  no 
evidence,  that  the  houi'ahold  of  Lydia  were  believers.  Confe- 
qu^ntly  their  baptifm  ftands  in  facred  writ,  as  an  example  in 
favor  of  the  baptifm  of  children  or  houfeholds  on  account  of 
the  faith  of  the  parent  or  head.  None  therefore  can  wiih 
truth  affcrt,  that  there  is  no  example  in  the  New-Teftament, 
where  baptifm  was  adminiftered  to  the  family  upon  the  faith 
of  the  head.  There  is  alfo  an  account  in  this  chapter  of  the 
baptifm  of  the  jailor  and  his  family.  It  is  faid,  that  he  "  was 
baptized,  and  all  his  itraightway."  But  tliere  is  no  proof, 
that  any  of  them  believed  but  himfelf.  For  the  littral  tianf- 
lation  of  the  Greek  in  the  next  verfc  i: ,  "  Pie  rejoiced  in 
or  with  all  his  houfe,  he  having  be'ieved  in  God. 

It  may  further  be  noticed,  ch*tin  the  account  of  the  apoilles' 


(or) 

iJTcaeliJng,  it  is  faid,  <«  And  they  fpafee  tinto  Hm  the  .^^ord  •f 
the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  hu  houfe,"  mtimatmg.  that 
there  were  fomeprefent  befides  his  family.  But  m  the  ac- 
count  of  his  baptifm,  it  is  not  faid,  "  He  was  baptized,  and 
all  that  were  in  his  houfe,"  but  "  be  and  all  h.s,  i.  e.  fivch  as 
belonged  to  him,  were  at  his  difpofal,  or  of  h.s  own  family 
And  does  not  this  plainly  intimate,  that  they  ^%%^^P"^^f^ 
upon  his  foith  ?  elle  why  are  they  fo  exprefsly  called  h.s  ?  But 
fuppofma:,  there  had  been  no  example  of  the  baptifm  of  a  tam- 
ily  upon  the  parent's  faith,  ftiU.  as  before  ihown,it  would  be 
no  proof,  that  it  was  never  pradiled.         .         „  ,  , 

Obi .  <{d.  The  language  of  fcripture  is,  "  Repent  and  be 
baptized  ;  believe  and  be  baptized  ;"  which  plainly  (hows,  tnat 
repentance  and  faith  are  the  condition  of  baptifm  j  and  there- 
fore it  ought  not  to  be  applied  to  infants,  who  are  mcapable 
of  giving  any  evidence  of  thefe. 

Avs.     Faith,  as  has  been  fliown,  was  as  much   the  con di- 
tion  of  circumcifion,  as  it  is  of  baptifm.     The  c.rcumcifion  of 
Abraham  therefore  is  declared  to  be  a  feal  of  the  faith,  which 
he  had  being  vet  unclrcumcifed,  (howing,  l^at  he  farft  Ulieved, 
and  then  cifcumclfed  himfelf  and  family  in  token  of  his  faith. 
So  Heathen  profelytes  were  required  to  profefs  their  taitU   m 
God,  before   they  were    clrcumcifed,  and  admitted  into  the 
ancient  church.     Had   circumcifion  therefore   remained  the 
feal  of  the  covenant  of  grace   in  the   Chriftian  church,  as  it 
vras  in  the  Jewiih  ;  and  kad  the  command   been,  «Oo   teactt 
all  nations,  clrcumcifing  them,"   &c.  would  not  the   apoftles 
have  addreffed  the  uncircumcifed,  juft  as  they  now  did  the  un- 
baptized  ?  Had  an  uncircumcifed  audience  a(ked  Peter,  as  the 
unbaptized   Jews  did,   "  Men  and    brethren,  what   fhall  w^ 
do  ?^'  woaid  he  not  have  faid  ?  «'  Repent  and  be  circumciled. 
Or 'had  an  uncircumcifed  eunuch  alked,  What  hinders  me   t^ 
be  circumcifed  ?  Muft  not  the   anfwer  have  been  the  fame 
that  was  given  by  Philip,  «  Thou  mayeft,  if  thou  beheveft  with 
all  thine  heart."  For  as  circumcifion  was  a  feal  of  the  nghfe- 
^.afnefs  of  faith;  Peter  and  Philip  could   not   have  righttuUf 
circumcifed  thefe  perfons  without  a  profeHion  of  repentance  or 
faith  ;  andtherelore  mud  have  anfwered  thsm,  julf   as  the f 
now  did  with  refpea  to  baplifm.     Thefe  confiderat.ons  Ihow, 
that  f-ith  was  as  much  the  condition  of  adult  circumcifioa  as 
of  adult  baptifm. 

Therefore  the  dire^ion,  «  Repent,  or  beheve,  and  be 
baptized,"  affords  not  the  Icaft  evidence,  that  baptifm  does  not 
anfwei-  to  drcuimifjon,  and  is  not  to  be  applied  to  mfants,  as 


(62j 

that  was.  Yea,  the  apoftles  did  noC  aiifwer  thefe  enquiries 
differently  from  what  wcywho  pradife  infant-baptifrn,  might 
in  iinjilar  circumftances.  The  world  in  geaeral  were  then  uu- 
baptized.  And  fliould  an  unbaptized  adult,  like  the  eunuch, 
allc  what  hinders  me  to  be  baptized  ?  We  mufl:  anfwer  as  he 
did,  "  If  thou  belreveft  with  all  thine  heart  thou  mayeft." 
For  we  fuppofe,  that  no  fuch  perfon  has  a  right  to  baptiiin 
without  faith- 

Osj.  4th.  If  baptifm  is  a  feal  or  token  of  faith,  then  cer- 
tainly it  muft  be  improper  to  apply  it  to  children  or  infants> 
who  are  unbelievers. 

Ans.  It  is  very  evident,  from  what  has  been  already  faid, 
that  circumcifion  was  as  really  a  feal  or  token  of  faith,  as  bap- 
tifm is  ;  yet  God  exprefsly  commanded  the  Hebrew  church 
to  apply  this  feal  of  the  righteoufnefs  of  faith  to  their  chil- 
dren. When  therefore  any  affert>  that  it  is  improper  to  ap- 
ply the  feal  of  the  faith  of  believeis  tc  their  infants  ;  they  in 
faft  charge  God  wiih  commanding  an  impropriety,  and  thus 
highly  impeach  his  charafter.  For  it  is  undeniable,  that  he 
did  command  this ^eal  or  token  of  faith  to  be  applied  to  in- 
fants nnutr  the  ancient  difpenfation-  Since  therefore  this  ob- 
jecCtion  lies  as  much  againd  infant-circumcifion,  as  infant-bap- 
lifm,  and  even  impeaches  God  wiih  tommanding  what  is 
improper  in  his  infticuiions  ;  it  is  rjianifeft,  that  it  is  talfe,  and 
even  prefumptuous. 

Fujther,  baptiim  according  to  our  ideas  of  it  is  always  t& 
be  a  token  of  faith.  When  applied  to  children,  it  is  a  token 
of  the  parent's  faith  as  much  as  when  applied  to  himfelf. 
Why  tlien  is  it  not  as  proper,  that  the  feal  of  his  faith  fhould 
be  applied  to  his  children  in  token  of  his  giving  them  np  to 
Gcd  ;  as  it  is,  that  it  Ihould  be  applied  to  himielf  in  token  of 
his  giving  up  himfelf  ?  And  when  we  confider  the  import  of 
infant-baptiim,  that  it  is  a  token  of  the  parent's  faith,  a  fo- 
lemn  renewal  of  his  covenant — a  dedication  of  his  children  te 
God,  and  binding  himfelf  to  bring  them  up  for  God,  it  ap- 
pears to  be  a  very  fuitable,  ibleran,  fignificant  tranfa^lion. 
Another  fmjilar,  and  very  popular  objeflion  is,  that  baptifm 
is  an  hoi  ordinance,  and  therefore  it  ought  not  to  be  applied 
to  children  who  are  unholy. 

To  this  it  may  be  anfwered,  that  circumcifion  was  a  token 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,  a  feal  of  the  righteoufnefs  of  faith, 
denoted  renovation  of  heart,  &c.  and  therefore  was  as  holy 
an  ordinance  as  baptifm — was  the  fame  in  its  defign  and  im.- 
port.     And  fuice  circumcifion  was,  by    divine    command,  to 


be  applied  to  Infants,  we  have  no  right  to  fay,  that  baptifm, 
which  anfwers  to  it,  is  too  holy  to  be  applied  to  them.  The  ob- 
jeftion  if  it  prove  any  thing,  as  much  proves,  that  clrcumcifion 
ought  not  to  have  been  applied  to  infants  ;  as  it  does,  that 
baptifm  ought  not  to  be  applied  to  them  fmce  that  vras  as  ho- 
ly an  ordinance,  as  this.  Therefore  it  is  certain,  that  the  ob- 
Jedtion  is  groundlefs.     But, 

2dly.  In  w^hat  fenfe  is  baptifm  a  holy  ordinance  ?  If  the 
meaning  is,  thai  it  is  holy  in  fuch  a  fenfe,  that  it  owght  not  .to 
be  applied  to  any,  unlefs  they  give  evidence  of  real  holinefs 
of  heart;  this  is  the  very  queftion  in  difpute.  Therefore  to 
ailert,  that  baptifm  is  holy  in  this  fenfe  is  a  mere  begging  of 
the  queftion.  But  if  this  Is  not  the  meaning,  and  it  is  fuppofed 
to  be  holy  in  fome  other  fenfe  ;  then  its  being  holy  wrill  afford 
no  evidence  that  it  ought  not  to  be  adminiftered  to  infants. 
Therefore, 

3dly.  Allowing,  that  baptifm  In  a  certain  fenfe  is  a  holy 
ordinance  ;  fo  the  children  of  believers  are  alfo  in  fome  fenfe 
holy.  For  the  apoftle  exprefsly  declares,  concerning  fuch, 
«'  Elfe  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy." 
Cor.  vil.  14.  Why  then  is  it  Improper  to  apply  a  holy  ordi- 
nance to  thofe,  whom  the  fcriptures  term  holy.  Yea,  there 
is  reafon  to  conclude,  that  they  are  called  holy  in  this  fenfe, 
that  they  are  projier  fubjefts  of  this  ordinance. 

Obj.  5th.  The  baptifm  of  infants  is  of  no  benefit  or  ad- 
vantage. 

Ans.  There  may  be  as  much  benefit  in  baptizing  infants 
as  there  was  in  circumcifing  them.  The  Jews  might  have 
made  the  iiame  objeflion  againft  clrcumcifmg  their  infants  ; 
that  they  could  not  fee,  that  it  would  be  of  any  advantage  to 
them.  But  would  this  have  excufed  them  in  negle5:;\g  this 
divine  inftitution  ?  Neither  will  it  excufe  us  in  neglecting  in- 
fant-baptifm  ;  fmce  there  is  fafficient  evidence,  that  this  is  a 
duty,  enjoined  upon  the  church  of  God.  For  our  being  igno- 
rant  of  what  good  purpofes  a  divine  inftitution  may  anlwer, 
is  no  argument  againft  it ;  nor  any  escufe  for  neglefting  it. 
Our  duty  is  to  obey  the  commands  of  God,  Vrhether  we  car\ 
difcern  the  reafon  or  benefit  of  them,  or  not.  Could  we  there- 
fore fee  no  advantage  in  infant-baptifm,  yet  that  would  be  no 
proof  at  all  againft  it.     But, 

zdly.  The  baptifm  of  infants  may  anfwer  many  good  pur- 
pofesc  Whenever  an  infant  is  baptized,  the  tranfafiion  is 
calculated  to  remind  the  whole  congregation  of  their  nacive 
depravity — that  they  are  born  in  fin,  and  need  to  be  fprinkled 


(64) 

vnth  the  blood  of  fprmkling,  or  to  be  clcanfed  by  the  wafliing 
of  regeneration.  It  is  alfo  calculated  to  remind  parents  of 
tlicir  covenant  obligations  to  train  up  their  children  for  God, 
10  whom  they  have  thus  publicly  devoted  them. 

Further^  parents  do  in  this  way  folemnly  bind  themfelves, 
and  thus  increafe  their  obligations,  to  bring  up  tlieir  children 
in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  th«  Lord,  And  is  it 
not  advantageous  to  children,  that  their  parents  fhould  be 
bound  by  the  mo  ft  folemn  engagements  and  obligations  ta 
give  them  a  religious  education  ? 

Further,  as  children  in  the  ordinance-  of  baptifm  are  pub- 
Ikly  given  up  to  God,  and  have  the  feal  of  his  covenant  put- 
upon  them  ;  fo  the  church  are  under  peculiar  obligations  to 
take  care,  that  they  have  a  Chriftian  education,  are  rcftrained 
from  fmful  courfes,  and  are  brought  up  in  the  nurture  and 
admonition  of  the  Lord.  And  were  the  church  and  parents 
faithful  in  performing  thefe  duties  towards  their  children,  it 
■would  have  a  peculiar  tendency  to  reftrain  them  from  fin,  and 
to  imprefs  them  with  a  fenfe  of  the  importance  of  divine 
things. 

Parents  likewife  in  this  way  publicly  manifefl;  their  faith 
and  renew  covenant  with  God,  by  putting  the  token  of  it  upon 
their  children,  and  fo  are  reminded  of  their  covenant  engage, 
ments  towards  God. 

And  if  parents  do  obey  God.  by  heaitily  dedicating  their 
children  to  him  according  to  his  appointment,  and  are  faith- 
ful by  religious  inftrudions  and  examples  to  bring  them  up  in 
the  nurture  and  admonitioa  of  the  Lord,  they  have  at  leaft 
great  encouragement  to  hope  for  a  divine  bl effing  upon  their 
children — that  God,  according  to  his  declaration  in  Ifaiah 
xliv.  3,  rjill  pour  out  his  fpirit  upon  their  feed,  and  his  Mef- 
fmg  on  their  offspring.  And  who  knows,  how  much  God, 
is  }  leafed  to  reUrain  fuch  children  from  fmful  courfes,  or  how 
many  of  them  he  is  pleafed  to  renew  out  of  refpeft  to  the  obe- 
dience of  their  pious  parents,  and  to  what  they  have  done  for 
them  in  this  refpe^  ;  as  God  granted  many  bkffings  to  the 
pofterity  of  Abraham  on  accoxmt  of  his  faith  and  pious  obe- 
dience ?  Knne  therefore  can  afiert,  that  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tilrn  is  not,  thro'  a  divine  bkffing,  bcnaficial  to  children,  as 
well  as  to  their  pious  parents. 

And  if  it  is  a  divine  inftitution,  us  has  been  {hown,  the 
ncgled  of  it  luuft  be  difplealing  to  God,  and  expofe  to  hie 
frowns. 

As  it  is  often  afked,  v\  hat  benefit  there  is  in  baptiring  chil- 


(65) 

dren,  I  would  ask  what  advantage  there  is  in  baptizing  a« 
dalts  ?  The  water  of  itfelf  can  be  of  no  more  fpiritual  benefit 
to  adults  than  to  infants.  Is  there  any  other  advantage  in  the 
baptifm  of  adults,  than  as  it  is  a  token  of  their  faith,  the  anfwer 
of  a  good  confcience  in  obeying  a  divine  command,  and  as  ic 
tends  to  remind  them  of  their  obligations  to  God.  And  may 
not  every  parent  experience  all  thefe  advantages,  v?henevcr  he 
gives  up  a  child  in  this  ordinance  ?  It  appears  therefore,  that 
the  baptifm  of  infants,  rightly  viewed,  is  not  a  mere  trivial 
ceremony,  but  a  very  ferious  and  important  transaflion,  may  an* 
fwer  many  good  purpofes  both  to  parents  and  children,  and  be 
<jf  as  much  advantage,  as  infant-circumcifion  was.  But  even 
if  we  could  difcern  no  benefit  in  it,  ftill  as  has  been  Ihown, 
that  would  be  no  proof  againft  it. 

Obj.  6th.  If  perfons  are  baptized  in  infancy,  as  a  token  of 
their  parent's  faith,  then  they  will  have  no  token  of  their  own 
faith,  when  they  themfelves  believe,  efpecially  if  they  have  no 
children  to  offer  in  baptifm. 

'  Ans.  This  objedlion  is  as  forcible  againft  circumcifing,  as 
baptizing  infants.  For  thofe  who  were  circumcifed  when  in- 
fants, had  no  more  a  token  of  their  own  faith  when  they  be- 
lieved ;  than  thofe  have,  who  are  now  baptized  in  infancy. 
None  could  become  members  of  God's  ancient  church,  un- 
!efs  they  were  circumcifed,  or  had  the  ftanding  feal  of  God's 
covenant  applied  to  them.  If  they  had  not  received  this  feal 
in  infancy,  it  v.'as  to  be  applied  to  them,  when  they  made  a 
prdfeffion  of  their  faith.  But  if  they  had  once  received  the 
feal  or  token  of  the  covenant ;  their  profetling  to  aflent  to  this 
covenant,  and  to  ratify  the  dedication,  made  by  their  parents 
by  devoting  themfelves  to  God,  was  confxdered  a  fufficient  to- 
ken of  their  faith  without  being  circumcifed  anew.  So  it  is 
with  refpeft  to  baptifm.  None  can  become  members  of  the 
Chriftian  church,  unlefs  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghoft.  But  when  once  this  feal  of  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  has  been  adminiftered  to  a  perfon  ;  there  is  no 
more  neceffity  or  warrant  to  repeat  it,  when  the  perfon  him- 
felf  believes,  affents  to  this  covenant,  and  ratifies  the  dedication 
made  by  his  parents  by  devoting  himfelf  to  God,  than  there 
was  for  a  Jew  to  receive  circumcifion  anev/,  when  he  believed. 
There  are  various  other  ways,  in  which  Chriftians  manifeft  or 
betoken  their  faith,  as  well  as  by  dedicating  themfelves  in 
baptifm.  They  do  it  by  a  public  profeflion,  and  whenever 
they  attend  upon  the  Lord's  fupper,  or  offer  a  child  in  baptifm. 
Ther-.f.^re  perfons,  who  have  been  baptized  in  infancy,  are 
I 


{66) 

iinder  no  neceflity  to  be  re-baptized,  when  tliey  believe,  in  or-  . 
der  lo  betoken  their  faith. 

Obj.  7th.  Baptifm  cannot  (land  inftead  of  circumcifion,  be- 
.  caufe  the  latter  wasapplied  to  males  only,  and  was  to  ;be    per- 
formed on  the  eighth  day,  but  the  former  is  to  be  adminlftered 
to  both  fexes,  and  at   any  time  :    therefore  we  cannot  argue 
from  the  one  to  the  other. 
.  Ans.  It  is  abundantly  evident  from  our  fubjed,  that  the  de- 
fign  and  import  of  circumcifion   and   baptifm   are    the  fame  ; 
and  that  baptifm  is  now    the   feal  or  token    of  the    believer's 
faith,  and  fo  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  as  circumcifion  was  un- 
der the  Jewifli  difpenfation.     It  is  certain  therefore,  that  bap- 
tifm does  anfwer  to  circumcifion — is  the  feal  of  the    fame  co- 
venant, .akho'  there  may  be  feme  circumftantial    dift'erence- 
Suppofing  a  certain  king  had  a  feal   or    ftamp,   which   he   di-. 
refted  to    be  afBxed  to   all  deeds  to  render  them  legal.      Af- 
terwards  he  appointed  a  new  feal,  of  a  different  form,  and  di- 
rected, that  itlhould  be  applied  not  only  to  all  deeds,   but  alio 
to  all  bonds.     Now  in  this  cafe  would  there  be   any    truth   or 
propriety  in  afTerting,  that  the  /n^iv  feal  did    not  ftand    inftead 
of  the  cU  one  ;  merely  becaufe  it  vvas  to  be  affixed  to  bonds,  as 
well  as  deeds — was  to  be  more  cxtenfively    applied,    than  the 
old  one  was  ?  Neither  is  there  any  truth  or  reafon  in  aflerting, 
that  baptifm,  becaufe  applied  to  both  fexes,    did  not  ccme   in. 
the  room   of  cicumcifion ;     fmce  they    are  both  feals  of  the 
fame  righteoufnefs  of  faith,  or  of  the  fame  covenant  of  grace. 
Under  the  ancient  difpenfation,  God  was   pleafed    to   appoint 
a  feal  of  his  covenant,  which  was   applicable    to  males  only. 
But  ftill  females  might  be  admitted  into    covenant  with    him 
by  profeflion,  partaking  of  ij'.:    facritices,  &c.      Eut  under  the 
(^hriftian  difpenfation,  which  is  !>;ore  free   and   extenfive,  and 
in  which  there  is  no  diflinclion  of  nations  and    fexes,  God  has 
appointed  a  feal,  whicli  is  applicable    to    both  fexes.      Accor- 
dingly the  apgllle  declares,  that   ♦'  There  is  neither    Jew  nor 
Greek,  neither  wgle  nor  female  :  For  ye  are  all  one  in  Chrift 
Jefus,"     BiUbecau/e  bapliim  is    thus  applied  to  both    fexef, 
orroore  extenfively,  than  circumcifion  was,  it  no  more  proves, 
that  it  did  not  come  in  the  room  of  circumcifion  as  the  ftal  of 
the  righteoufnefs  of  faith  ;  than  the  king's  7/civ  ytv?/ being    ap- 
plied to  bonds  as  well  as  to  deeds,  pjoves,  that  it  did  not  corne 
inllead  of  the  «/i3'' o;7f'. 

Neither  is  it  any  proof,  that  baptilhi  does  not  anfwer  te 
circumcifion,  becaufe  the  latter  was  to  be  performed  on  the 
eighth  day,  and  might   be  doiK  by  patents,   while  ther;    's  i.c 


(67). 

particular  day  fixedfot  the  adrnitiil> ration  of  the  n^rmer,  ani 
•  L  mull  be  adminift'ered  by  a  miniller  of  the  gofpf^l.  if  tkd 
two  ordinances  are  of  the  fame  import,  and  anfwer  the  fame 
ends  in  God's  church  under  different  difpenfations,  it  is  niani- 
feft,  that  the  one  ilands  inftead  of  the  other,  nntwithlUnding- 
theT5  may  be  fome  circumftantial  difRrence  between  them. 

Thus  the  pairover  was  to  be  attended  on  a  certain'  d<-vy  of 
the  month  .and  year,  at  a  certain  time  of  the  day,  viz,  at  eve- 
ning ;  and  it  was  not  neceflary,  that  any  prieft  fliould  be  pre-- 
Tent  and'alTift  at  the  table,  when  it  was  eal^n.  Bat  with  ref- 
pcft  to  the  Lord's  fupper,  there  are  no  particular  direaions, 
how  often,  or  on  vThut  day,  or  particnlar  time  of  the  day  it 
is  CO  be  atteiKled,  and  it  is  to  he  adminiftered  by  a  gofpel 
minifter.  Bat  nntwithftanding  thefe  circumllantial  diiferen- 
ces,  the  Lord's  fupper  now  very  llrikingly  aufwers  to  the 
paiFover  in  the  ancient  church,  and  evidently  (lands  inilead  of 
It,  as  has  been  already  fhown.  Hence  the  apollle  fpeaks  of 
the  Lord's  iup^-^r  in  the  language  of  the  pafchal  feaft.  "  For 
even  Chrift,  our  pa/Tover,  is  lacrificed  for  us.  Therefore  let  us 
keep  the  feaft,  not  with  old  leaven,  neither  with  the  leaven^  of 
malice  andwickednefs,  &c. 

Thefe  confiderations  clearly  evince,  that  fuclr  circamftan- 
tial  differences  between  baptifm  and  circuracifion,  as  have 
been,  confidered  under  this  objeaion,  afford  no  proof,  that 
the  one  did  not  come  inftead  of  the  other.  But  to  fupporc 
the  objeaion,  that  baptifm  does  not  anfwer  to  circumcifion, 
it  is  neceflary  to  prove,  that  they  are  not  both  leals  of  the 
righteoufnefsoffaith,or  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  whkh  it 
is  evident  none  can  do.  For  until  this  is  done,  it  will  be  mani- 
fefl  that  the  one  anfwers  to  the  other,  whatever  circumftan- 
tial difference  there  may  b^  between  them. 

One  particular  reafon,  why  the  circumcifion  of  children, 
under  that  difpenfation,  was  deferred  till  the  eighth  day,  was 
the  ceremonial  impurity  of  the  mother,  and  confequently  of 
the  child.—"  If  a  woman  have  born  a  man-child,  flie  fhall  be 
unclean  feven  days— and  on  the  eighth  day  he  (hall  be  cir- 
cumcifed."  But  as  this  reaibn  is  not  applicable  under  the 
Chriaian  difpenfation,  and  as  there  is  no  particular  time  ap- 
pointed for  baptifm  or  the  Lord's  fupper,  the  adminillration 
of  thefe  ordinances,  is  left  difcretionary  as  to  the  time.  It 
convenient,  children  may  be  dedicated  to  God  in  baptifm  be- 
fore tlie  eighth  day.  But  if  circumftances  render  it  inconve- 
nient, the  omifllou  of  It  till  after  this  time  will  not  be  blamea- 
ble.     But  parents  undoubtedly  ought  thus  to  dedicate  their 


(68) 

children  as  foon  as  it  may  be  done  with  fafety  and  conveni- 
ence.    And  all  unneceffary  delays  are  blameable. 

Obj.  8th.  The  Jews  when  they  believed,  were  baptized, 
altho'  they  had  been  circunicifed  before ;  and  this  fliows, 
that  baptifm  did  not  come  in  the  room  of  circumcifion,  and  is 
not  a  feal  of  the  fame  covenant,  for  if  it  had  been,  there  would 
have  been  no  need  of  repeating  it  by  baptizing  thofe,  who  had 
been  circumcifed. 

Ans.  God,  in  appointing  the  feals  of  his  covenant,  has  a 
peifedl  right  to  dired,  how  they  fhall  be  applied.  When 
therefore  he  inftituted  a  new  feal  of  his  covenant,  or  of  the 
righteoufnefs  of  faith  ;  it  belonged  to  him  to  fay,  whether  it 
jTiould  be  applied  to  thofe,  who  had  received  the  old  feal,  or 
not.  If  he  fawbeft,  he  certainly  had  a  right  to  dired,  that 
it  fhould  be  applied  to  thofe  who  had  received  .^the  old  feal, 
when  they  profeffed  their  faith  in  Chrift,  and  united  witli  his 
church  under  the  new  difpenfation.  If  then,  as  has  been 
fhown,  circumcifion  and  baptifm  are  both  feals  of  the  fame  co- 
venant of  grace,  or  of  the  righteoufnefs  of  faith  ;  it  would  be 
no  evidence,  that  the  one  does  not  anfwer  to  the  other  ;  be- 
caufe  the  circumcifed  Jews  vvere  baptifed  when  they  believed  ; 
even  if  we  were  unable  to  fee  the  reafon  of  this  divine  direc- 
tion. For  Gcd  had  a  perfedl  right  to  direct  this  matter  as  he 
law  fit.     But, 

It  is  argued  by  the  Baptifts,  that  when  a  new  feal  is  inftitu- 
ted in  human  governments,  it  is  never  applied  to  what  has 
been  already  fealed  or  ratified  ;  as  it  would  be  difannulling 
what  the  government  had  before  done.  Since  therefore  bap- 
tifm was  adminiftered  to  thofe  who  had  received  circumcifion, 
they  on  this  ground. urge,  that  thcfe  ordinances  cannot  be  feals 
ofthe  fame  covenant. 

To  this  it  may  be  anfwered,  that  in  human  governments  it 
would  be  inconvenient,  when  a  newfe;il  was  inllituted,  to  re- 
quire the  new-fealing  of  every  thing,  which  had  been  ratified 
by  the  old  feal.  But  doubtlefs  there  might  he  circumflances, 
in  which  a  human  government  might  be  jufHfied  in  fuch  a 
requirement.  And  were  this  the  cafe,  it  could  not  with  any 
truth  be  faid,  that  the  neiu  feal  did  not  come  in  the  room  of 
the  old  one,  merely  becaufe  for  certain  reafons  it  might  be  ap- 
plied to  what  had  been  already  ratified  by  the  old  feal. 

But  further,  the  Mofl  High  in  the  management  of  his  vail 
kingdom  is  not  obligated  to  conform  to  thofe  cuftoms  and 
praftices,  which,  may  be  convenient  or  expedient  in  human 
governments.     The  reafons  which  influence  them  may  not 


(69) 

apply  to  him.  We  cannot  therefore  reafon  from  ths'r  prff- 
ceedings  to  /;;;,  with  any  degree  of  certainty.  In  appointing 
a  new  leal  to  his  covenant,  God  might  fee  reafons,  why  it 
Vfas  beft  it  fhould  be  apphed  to  theft;,  who  had  received  the 
old  one.  Confequently  he  had  a  perfe^ft  right  to  direft,  that 
it  fhould  be  applied  to  tliem. 

In  this  view  it  is  evident,  that  the  baptifm  of  thofe,  who 
had  before  received  cirLumcifion,  affords  not  the  leaft  proof, 
that  they  are  not  both  feals  or  tokens  of  the  fame  covenant  of 
grace.  'Xhefe  confiderations  mi^ht  be  a  fufficient  anfwel"  to 
tlie  obje(5lion.     But, 

2dly.  We  may  fee  many  reafons,  why  it  was  fuitable,  that 
the  circumcifed  Jews  fhould  be  baptized,  when  they  profeifed 
their  faith  in  Chrill.  The  Jewifii  church,  which  pradifed  cir- 
cumcifion,  iwd  profefled  to  be  God's  people,  had  become  ve- 
ry corrupt — had  rejeded  Chrift  the  bon  of  Gad,  and  put  him 
to  death.  When  therefore  Chrift  rofe  from  the  dead,  and  fet 
up  the  Chriftian  difpenfation,  he  inftituted  a  new  feal  for  his 
church.  Thofe  who  profefTed  to  believe  in  Jefus  Chrift,  were 
to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghoft,  to  diftinguilh  them  from  the  unbelieving  Jews,  as 
well  as  from  the  Heathen  ;  juft  as  circumcifion  under  tha 
ancient  difpenfadon  was  deligned  to  diftinguifti  the  people  of 
God  from  Heathen  idolators.  Since  therefore  the  great  body 
of  the  Jews,  who  pradifed  circumcifion,  rejedted  Chrift  and 
iiis  gofpel,  it  appears  very  fuitable  th.it  thofe  of  them  who  be- 
lieved in  him,  (hould  be  baptized  in  his  name,  altho'  tliey  had 
been  circumcifed  ;  that  they  might  be  diftinguilhed  from  the 
nation  in  general,  who  v/ere  brolien  off  from  God's  churck 
by  unbelief,  and  were  enemies  to  the  gofpel  of  Chrift.  Thus 
whenever  a  believing  Jev/  prefented  himfelf  or  children  for 
baptifm,  it  was  a  public  manifeftation  of  his  receiving  the 
Saviour. 

Further,  when  the  Chriftian  difpenfation  was  fet  up,  and 
the  unbelieving  Jev/s  were  broken  off  from  God's  church  af- 
ter the  death  of  Chrift ;  circumcifion  then  ceafed  to  be  the 
feal  of  the  righteoufnefs  of  faith,  or  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 
Thofe  who  were  unbaptifed  therefore  had  not  upon  them  the 
feal  of  the  righteoufnefs  of  faith,  which  belonged  to  the  Chrif- 
tian difpenfation.  Was  it  not  very  fuitable  then,  that  the 
Jews  (hould  receive  the  feal  of  the  new  difpenfation,  when  they 
profelTed  to  receive  the  Saviour  ?  We  can  therefore  fee  fome 
reafons,  why  it  was  proper,  that  the  beiievi.ng  Jews  fnould  be 
baptized;    altho'   they    had   before    received    circun:^cifion, 


which  was  a  feal  of  the  fame  covenant  under  the  old  difpenfrf- 
tion. 

Qbj.  fth.  Jefus  Chrift,  who  came  to  be  our  example,  was 
baptized  at  adult  age,  therefore  we  ought  to  imitate  him  in 
this  refpedl. 

Ans.  If  Chrift  was  baptijfed  for  our  example,  h  it  not  as 
much  a  proof,  that  we  muft  not  be  baptifed  until  thirty  years 
old,  as  it  is  that  we  muft  not,  till  we  become  adults.  For 
John  was  baptifmg  fome  time,  before  Jefus  went  to  him  for 
baptifm.  Luke  informs  us  in  his  gofpe],iii.  2i.  that,  "  when 
all  the  people  were  baptized,  it  came  to  pafs,  that  Jefus  alfo 
was  baptized."  Chrift  waited  till  he  "  began  to  be  about 
diirty  years  of  age,"  before  he  went  to  be  baptized,  altho*  he 
niiorht  have  been  baptized  fome  time  before.  If  then  he  was 
Daptized  as  an  example  for  us,  ought  we  not  to  wait,  till  of 
fhe  fame  age  ?  For  certainly  we  cannot  expedl  to  be  qualified 
for  this  ordinance  at  an  earlier  age  than  our  Saviour. 

Further,  Chrift's  baptifm  could  not  be  of  the  fame  import 
and  defign,  as  the  baptifm  of  Chnftians.  As  he  was  perfect- 
ly holy,  it  could  not  denote  repentance,  renovation  of  heart, 
cieanfing  from  fin,  &c.  or  the  need  of  thefe  ;  as  the  baptifm  ot 
others  does.  Neither  is  there  any  evidence,  that  John  bapti- 
zed in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft,  which 
is  the  form  of  Chriftian  baptifm,  inftituted  by  Chrift  after  his 
refurredtion,  Efpecially  we  cannot  fuppofe,  that  Chrift  was 
baptized  in  his  own  name.  This  Ihows  that  die  baptifm  of 
our  Saviour,  was  diiFerent  in  its  nature,  defign  and  form  from 
that  which  is  now  adminiftered  in  the  Chriilian  church,  and 
therefore  we  cannot  determine  from  his  example,  at  what  age 
v/t  ought  to  be  baptized,  with  any  degree  of  certainty.  His 
baptiim  was  evidently  a  public  confecraticn  or  introdudion 
to  the  miniftry,  on  which  he  was  now  entering  as  our  great 
■  high  prieft.  It  was  therefore  in  conformity  to  the  law  of 
God,  which  inftituted  a  limilar  form  for  coniecrating  the  high 
prieft  to  his  office. 

The  priefts  under  the  law  entered  on  their  public  fervrce 
at  thirty  years  of  age  ;  fo  Chrift,  "  when  he  began  to  be  a- 
bout  thirty  years  of  age"  was  baptized  and  entered  upon  hts 
public  miniftry.  They  were  confecrated  to  their  office  by 
being  walhed  with  -water  as  to  their  hands  and  feet  ;  and  by 
being  anointed  wiih  oil,  which  was  poured  on  their  heads. 
In  conformity  to  this  law,  Jefus  Chrift,  our  great  high  prieft 
was  publicly  confecrated  or  introduced  into  his  miniftry  by 
baptifm,  ani  the  anointing  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  which  defcend- 


(  71  ) 

ed  upon  him  immediately  after  he  was  baptized.  For  Peter 
peaking  of  Chrift's  preaching,  fays,  *'  That  word  ye  know, 
which  began  from  Galilee,  after  the  baptifm  which  John 
preached,  how  God  anointed  Jei'us  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  and  with  power."  As  his  baptifm  was  in  conformi- 
ty to  the  law  for  confecrating  the  priefts  ;  he  therefore  fays 
to  John,  "  Thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteoufnefs." 
Since  therefore  the  baptifm  of  our  Saviour  was  different  ip  its 
nature,  defign  and  form,  from  thebaptifm  pradifed  in  the  Chrif- 
tian  church  ;  there  is  nottheleaft  reafon  or  propriety  in  fuppofings 
that  it  was  defigned  as  a  rule  or  example  for  us  in  this  refpeifl, 
unlefs  we  are  about  to  undertake  the  fame  office,  which  he 
performed.  To  argue,  that  no  children  ought  to  be  dedicated 
to  God  by  baptifm  ;  becaufe  Chrift  was  not  confecrated  by 
baptilm  to  his  public  miniftry  till  30  years  of  age,  is  certainly 
very  weak  and  inconclufive. 

Befides,  could  it  be  proved,  that  Chrift's  baptifm  was  the 
Tame  in  its  nature  and  defign,  as  the  baptifm  now  pradifed, 
flill  it  would  be  no  proof,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  adminiftered 
to  i'nfani-.s.  When  circumcifion  was  firft  inftituted  as  the  feai 
of  the  righteoufnefs  of  faith,  Abraham  received  itat  99  yeais 
of  age-  But  this  was  no  proof,  that  it  was  not  to  be  applied 
to  children  afterwards,  or  that  none  was  to  be  circumcifed 
till  99  years  old.  So  ftiould  it  even  be  allowed,  that  Chrift, 
and  others  who  profefled  their  faith  in  him,  were  baptized  at 
30  years  old  or  at  adult  age,  when  Chriftian  baptifm  was  fFrft 
inftituted  ;  yet  this  would  be  no  proof  againft  infant-baptifm. 
It  would  afford  no  more  argument  againft  it,  than  Abraham's 
adult  circumcifion  did  againft  the  circumcifion  of  infants.  It 
is  evident  therefore  from  various  confiderations,  that  the  bap- 
tifm of  Chrift,  affords  no  argument  or  objedtion  of  any  weight 
againft  infant-baptifm. 

Obj.  loth.  The  covenant  of  which  circumcifion  was  the 
feal,  is  abolifhed  ;  and  therefore  baptifm  cannot  be  a  feal  of 
the  fame  covenant. 

Ans.  Circumcifion  was  a  feal  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
and  that,  it  has  been  already  fnown,  was  in  reality  the  cove- 
nant of  grace.  Confequently  it  has  not  been  abolifhed  ;  for 
the  covenant  of  grace  is  immutable  and  eternal.  And  tha; 
the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  not  difannuUed  is  abundantly  evi- 
dent from  the  words  of  the  apoftle.  For  he  declares  that  the 
J^jleftlngs  of  Abraham  have  come  upon  the  Gentiles  thro*  Je- 
fas  Clirift.  Siiice  therefore  believing  Gentiles  now  enjoy  the 
blelfings  of  the  Abrahamic  covenaat,  that  God    will   be  their 


(72). 

God-;  it  k  certain,  that  tins  covenant  is  not  abollfhcd.  It 
is  alfo  by  this  covenant,  that  Abraham  was  conHItuted  the 
father  of  many  niitlons,  or  of  all  them  that  believe,  and  that 
believing  Gentiles  are  conftituted  «  Abraham's  feed,  and 
heirs  according  to  promile."  Tbefe  confiderations  clearly 
evince,  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  ftriftly  "  an  everlaft- 
ing  covenant,"  as  it  is  called,  Gen.  xvii.  and  that  it  does  for 
fubftance,  yet  ftand  in  full  force. 

Obj.  nth.  If  we  arguo  baptifm  from  circumcifion,  then 
all  children  in  Chriftian  countries  ought  to  be  baptized,  fince 
all  the  Jewift  children  were  circumcifed. 

Ans.  AU  the  Jews,  who  circumcifed  their  children,  were 
profeiTedly  in  covenant  wit!i  Gcd,  and  members  of  his  church. 
By  this  very  tranfadion  of  circumcifing  their  childreil,  they 
profefledly  affented  to  God's  covenant.  The  argument  there- 
fore from  circumcifion  proves,  that  all,  who  profefs  to  enter 
into  covenant  with  God,  and  become  members  of  his  church, 
are  to  -put  the  feal  of  this  covenant  upon  their  children. 
This  was  the  conftitution  under  the  Jewifli  difpenfa- 
tion ;  and  ought  to  be  the  praflice  in  the  Chriilian  church. 
But, 

2dly.  It  is  undoubtedly  true,  that  all  children  in  Chriftian 
countries  ought  to  be  baptized.  All  parents  ought  immedi- 
ately to  repent,  believe,  and  then  comply  with  the  covenant 
of  grace,  and  put  the  feal  of  it  upon  their  children.  Every 
parent  is  very  criminal  in  neglediing  it.  But  none  ever  ought, 
or  ever  were  required  to  profefs  to  be  in  God's  covenant  with  a 
•wicked  or  impenitent  heart,  and  thus  play  the  hypocrite.  This 
God  has  always  condemned.  Thus  he  reproved  the  Ifrael- 
ites  for  flattering  hira  with  tlieir  mouth,  and  lying  unto  him 
witli  tlieir  tongue  ;  while  their  heart  was  not  right.  And  un- 
to-the  wicked  he  faid,Pfalm  1.  "What  haft  thou  to  do,  that 
thou  fiiould'ft  take  my  covenant  in  thy  mouth  ?"  (bowing  that 
he  difapproved  of  the  wicked's  profeffing  to  enter  iiUo  his  co- 
venant. 

I'hus  a  right  view  of  the  Abrnhamic  covenant,  of  the  Jew- 
ifh  church,  and  of  the  nature  and  defign  of  circumcifion,  clearly 
fhows,  how  weak  and  inconclufive  the  nioit  plaufible  argu- 
ments and  objedioKs  are,  v.'hich  are  urged  againfl  infant-bap- 
tifm.  We  have  alfo  fuggefted  various  other  confiderations 
in  anfwer  to  objedions,  urged  by  the  Baptifts.  And  does  not 
the  proof,  adduced  from  cii'cnmcifion  being  a  feal  of  (he  cove- 
nant of  grace,  and  the  jcwifh  church  being  eilcntially  'J:e 
fame  widi  the  Chriftian,  ftand  firm  againft  all  tlicfe  objections  ? 


(73) 

III.  -As  we  have  applied  our  fubjs<5l  in  proof  of  infant-bap« 
tifm,  and  in  {howing  the  weaknefs  of  objedfions,  urged  againft 
this,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  mention  fome  other  corrobo- 
rating arguments  in  proof  of  this  pradice,  altho'  they  do  not 
direftly  flow  from  our  fubjed. 

I  ft.  The  words  of  the  apoftle.  Cor.  vii.    14.  afford  an  ar- 
gument of  confiderable   weight.     Speaking  of  the  cafe  of  a 
believer  and  unbeliever,  conneded    in  the  marriage   relation, 
he  fays,  "  The  unbelieving  hufband  is  fandified  by   the   wife, 
and  the  unbelieving  wife   is  fandified  by  the  hufljand  ;    elfe 
were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy."     As  the 
members  of  the  Jewifh  church  were  forbidden  to  marry,    or  to 
livd  with  an  idolatrous  hufband  or  wife,  and    as  the  children, 
when  one  of  the  parents  was  a  Heathen  or  idolator,  were  con- 
£dered  a.s  Heathen  or  unclean,  and  to  be   debarred  from  the 
privileges,  pertaining  to  the  children  of  the  church  ;    a  doubt 
had  arifen  in  the  minds  of  the  Corinthian  Chriftians,    whether 
when  one  of  the  parties  in  the  marriage  relation    was  convert- 
ed, it  was  right  to  live  in  this  relation  with  the    other,  who  re- 
mained a  Heathen  or  unbeliever  ;  and   whether  the  children 
were  to  be  confidered   as  children  of  the   church  or  of  the 
world  —were  to  be  treated  as  the   children  of  the  believer  or 
unbeliever.     In  anfwer  to   thefe    queries,  the   apoftle  dire<fted 
the  believer  not  to  put  away  or   leave    the  unbelieving    corre- 
late.    For  the  unbelieving  huftsand  is  fandified  by    the   wife, 
and  the  unbelieving  wife  by  the  hufband  ;  fo  that  the  believer 
may  have  a  juft  light  to  the  ufe  and  enjoyment  of  the  unbelie- 
ver in  this  relation.      Juft  as  it  is  faid  in   another  place,  "  To 
the  pure  all  things  are  pure.     And  every  creature  of  God  is 
,  good,  for  it  is  fanflified  by   the  word   of  God  and   prayer." 
•'  Elfe  were  your  children  unclean  ;  but  now  are  they   holy." 
If  it  had  been  wrong  for  believers  to  Jhave   lived  in    the  mar- 
riage relation  with  their  unbelieving  partners,  but    muft   have 
put  them  away,  as  the  Jews  did    their   Heathen  wives  ;     then 
their,  children  alfo  muft  have  been  treated  as  unclean  or  the  chil- 
dren of  unbelievers.     But  now  fince  the   unbeliever    is   fandi- 
fied  in  relation  to  the  believer,  the  children  are  holy — are  to  be 
confidered  as  the  childret^of  believers.    Here  the  apoftle  makes 
a  difference  between  the  children  of  believers  and  unbelievers  ; 
the  one  he  calls   unclean  and  the   other  holy.      It  is  certain 
therefore,  that  the  children  of  believers  are  in  fome  fenfe  holy. 
But  none  can  rationally  fuppofe,  that  they  are   all  born  with 
renewed  or  holy  hearts.     In  what  fenfe    then  are   they  holy  ? 
Is  it  not  evidently  in  this  fenfe,  that  they   are  confecraied  to 
K 


1 74) 

'God  Jn  baptifnj,  and  have  the  feal  of  hisxcvenani  applied  to 
".sl.em,  or  that  th:)'  are  the  proper  fubjefts  of  this  ordinance^ 
Things  thus  confecrated  to  God  are  often  called  holy  in  the 
fcripture.  Thus  the  children  of  the  Jewifh  church  or  of  thofe 
-,vho  were  in  covenant,  were  called  a  holy  feed.  But  the  chil- 
dren of  Heathen,  or  of  thofe  who  were  not  hi  covenant, 
Avere  conlidered  as  unclean,  and  might  not  thus  be  dedicated 
to  God  in  circumcifion.  So  the  children  of  unbelievers  are 
now  termed  unclean,  as  they  are  not  to  be  confecrated  to  God 
inbaptifm.  Is  not  this  evidently  the  meaning  of  the  apoftle 
in  this  paflage  ?  And  does  it  not  therefore  clearly  teach,  that 
the  children  of  believers  are  now  to  be  devoted  to  God  in  bap- 
tifm,  as  they  "Wire  to  be  devoted  to  him  by  circumcifion  under 
the  jewifh  difpenfation  ?  The  oppofers  of  infant-baptifm,  to 
evade  the  argument  from  this  pallage,  are  neceffitated  to  aflert 
that  holy  here  means  legitimate.  But  this  is  a  fenfe  in  which 
the  term  holy  is  never  ufed  in  any  other  part  of  fcripture,  and 
therefore  is  very  evidently  a  forced,  unnatural  cocih-udion* 
merely  te  evade  an  argument,  which  they  cannot  otherwife 
anfwer.  Beiidcs,  may  not  the  children  of  unbelievers  be  le- 
gitimate, and  in  this  fenfe  holy,  as  w-1!  ??s  children  of  belie- 
vers ?  Or  cf.ri  w«fuppofe,  that  the  apcllle  meant  to  declare, 
iliat  the  children  of  ail  unbelievers  were  balbrds  ?  Do  not 
thefe  confiderations  clearly  fl-.ow,  that  the  term  holy  here  can- 
not mean  the  fame  as  legitimate  ;  as  the  oppofers  of  infant- 
bapttfm  vv'ould  fain  make  us  believe. 

Again,  under  the  former  difpenfation  the  children  of  thofe 
parents,  w^io  entered  into  covenant  with  God,  or  belonged  to> 
hi.;  church,  were  dedicated  to  God  by  having  the  feal  of  his 
covenanL  applied  to  them.  The  Jews  efteemed  it  a  ^reat 
privilege  to  have  the  feal  of  God's  covenant  thus  applied  t* 
their  children ;  and  even  the  apollle  teaches,  that  there  was 
much  profit  in  circumcifion.  If  th'^refore  the  token  of  the 
covenant  had  not  been  app^lied  to  children  under  the  Chriftian 
difpenf-ition,  would  not  the  Jews  have  cavilled  and  objefted 
Hgainll  ihe  gol'pei  on  account  of  its  tl:UE  excluding  childreR" 
from  this  privilLgc  ?  They  were  greatly  attached  to  their  pri- 
vileges, v.'ere  very  ready  to  cavil  wh^  they  were  abridged, 
and  \'ery  apt  to  cbjeft  againlt  the  gofpel,  when  they  could 
tinJ  any  occafion.  Since  therefore  we  do  not  find,  that  they 
ever  objefled  againPc  the  gofpel  on  account,  of  its  excluding 
children  from  thi=  privilege,  there  is  great  reafon  to  believe, 
that  they  vcrc  not  evelude.',  but  had  th-'  feal  of  the  righteouf- 


(  7-5  ) 

rte^  of  faith,  or  of  God's  covenant  applied  to  thom,  as  it  v.'a;;. 
fn  the  Jewifli  church. 

Further,  the  apolHe  In   anfwerlng  the    queftions,    **  What 
advantage  hath  a  Jew  ?  And  what  profit  is  there  of  clrcumci- 
kon?  fays,   "  Much  every  way."     This  (tows,  that  it   was  a 
privilegei"orJawini  children  to  be    given   up   to   God:--have 
thefcalofhis  covenant  put  upon  them^  andto   have  their  pa- 
rents folenialy  bound  to  bring  them  up  in    the  knowledge  and 
ferviceof  God.     If  Uierefore^he  profit  of  circurncifion  in   t4iefe 
refpeas  Vv'as.  a^  the  apoftle   declares,  "  much  every  wa)',"  then 
certainly  its  abolition  mull  be  a  lofs  to  children  in  thefe  refpecls, 
iinlefs  there  is  fomething  appointed  in  its  room.       But   as  the 
^rofpel  difpenfatlon  is  reprefented  as   more    extenfive    and  ricli 
dian  the  former,  it  affords  great  reafon  to  conclude,  that  thr. 
a<ivanr.age  of  circumciiion  is  fully  fnpplied  to    the  children  oC, 
believers  by  the  inlrodudion  of  bapti'.m  in  its  ftead; 

zJly.  Omitting  other  arguments,  which  might  be  addu- 
ced from  the  v/ord  of  God,  it  may  be  obferved,  that  the  proof 
in  favor  of  infant-baptifm  is  greatly  confirmed  by  the  praitice- 
of  the  church  in  the  early  ages  of  Chrifttanity.  ^  Origen,  who 
lived  loo  years  after  the-  apofiles,  declares,  that  infant-baptifm 
had  beenthe  conftant  ufage  of  the  church  from  the  days  of 
the  apoftles.  He  fays,  "  That  the  church  had  an  order  frcn: 
the  apoftles  to  give  baptifm  to  infants."  He  alfo  arguecj' 
from  infant-baptifm  to  prove  original  fm,  or  the  natural  de- 
pravity of  the  human  heart.  This  Ihows  that  it  was  an  un- 
controverted  pradice  of  the  church  ;  otherwife  he  could  not, 
with  propriety,  have  ufed  it  as  an  argument  to  eftablifn  ano- 
ther point. 

About  5'o  years  after  this,  "2  queftion  was  ftarted  by  ori^ 
Fidus,  whether  baptifm  ought  not  to  be  given  to  infants  on 
the  eighth  day,  according  to  the  lav/  of  cirGumcifion.  This 
queftion  v;as  propofed  to  66  Biftiopsor  mini(tersj  convened  at 
Carthage,  v,ho  unanimoufly  refolved,  that  it  was  not  ne- 
celTary  to  defer  baptifm  to  the  eighth  day,  but  it  might  be 
given  at  any  time  before,  if  convenient."  But  none  of  them 
manifefted  the  lead  doubt  or  fcruple  about  the  pradice  of  in- 
fant-baptifm. A  large  letter,  containing  the  reafons  of  this 
refolve,  was  written  by  Cyprian,  in  the  name  of  the  council. 

Now  among  fuch  a  number  of  minifter?,  doubtlefs  there 
were  fome  6o  or  70  years  old,  v/ho  coald  remember  within 
lefs  than  1 00  years  of  the  apofl.leb.  If  therefore  infant-bap- 
tifm had  been  a  praftice,  introduced  fmce  the  days  of  the 
apoftles,  fome  of  them  muft  h-ave  known  it.     And  if  fo,  is  it 


(76) 

HOt  flrange,  that  none  of  them  fhould  Intimate  any  fcrupic  a- 
bout  it  I 

About  100  years  after  this  time  Ambrofe  declared,  «  that 
the  baptifm  of  infant*  had  been  the  pradice  of  the  apoftles, 
and  of  the  church  till  that  time." 

Auftin,  about  300  years  after  the  apoftles,  had  a  controver- 
fy  with  one  Pelagius  about  original  fin.  To  prove  this,  Auf- 
tin frequently  urges  infant-baptifm,  demanding,  why  infants 
are  baptized  for  the  remiffion  of  fin,  if  they  have  none  ?  And 
altlio'  Pelagius  appeared  greatly  puzzled  with  the  argument, 
yet  he  did  not  pretend  to  deny  the  duty  or  pradlice  of  infant- 
baptifm.  Now  Pelagius  was  a  man  of  great  learning  and  in- 
formation, and  had  been  perfonally  acquainted  vi-irh  the  moft 
noted  churches  in  Europe,  A fia,  and  Africa.  And  had  in- 
fant-baptifm been  a  departure  from  the  apoflolic  praftice,  he 
mufi:  have  had  feme  intimation  of  it.  And  had  he  known  it, 
he  doubtlefs  would  have  mentioned  it  to  relieve  himfelf  from 
the  argument  from  infant-baptifm,  with  which  he  was  "fo  em- 
barraffed.  This  affords  a  firong  argument,  that  infant-bap- 
tifm has  been  the  pradice  of  the  church  from  the  days  of  the 
apoftles.  ^  For  had  the  whole  Chriftian  church  throughout 
Afia,  Africa  and  Europe,  departed  from,  the  apoftoiic  prac- 
tice, fuch  a  pubHc  matter  muft  have  been  generally  known. 
And  if  fo  Pelagius  would  not  have  failed  to  mention  it  to 
obviate  Auftin's  arguments  from  infant-baptifm. 

There  is  no  account  of  any  church  in  all  the  Chriftian 
world,  that  ever  denied  or  fpoke  againft  infant-baptifm  for 
1100  years  after  Chrift.  In  11 30  there  appeared  a  fmall 
number  in  France,  who  denied  the  poifibility  of  the  faivadon 
of  infants  ;  and  confequently  their  right  to  baptifm.  But 
•his  fed  foon  difappeared.  Excepting  thefe  there  is  no  ac- 
count of  any  church,  that  held  at  all  to  water  baptifm^  wliich 
denied  the  baptifm  of  infants  till  about  the  year  1520.  Then 
the  prefent  fed  of  Anabaptifts  took  their  rife  in  Germany  ; 
whence  they  have  fpread  into  various  parts  of  Europe  and 
America. 

Now  the  Chriftian  religion,  in  the  days  of  the  apoftles,  was 
propagated  into  many  diftant  countries,  and  churches  were 
eftabli/hed  in  Europe,  Afia,  and  Africa,  in  diHerent  kingdom.s 
and  nations,  feveral  thoufand  miles  diftant  from  each  other. 
But  if  thefe  churches  had  been  every  where  eftablilhed  upon 
the  plan  of  adult-baptifm  only,  and  no  children  h:\d  been  bapti- 
zed ;  how  could  infant-baptifm  become  fo  r.iiiverfally  preva- 
lent thro*   all  the  Chiiftian   \rorld,  among  different  natioiii, 


■(77) 

and  mcharchesthoufands  of  miles  diftant,  in  the  conrfe  o^ 
a  lOO  years  from  the  apoftles  ?  Row  could  fuch  afpeedyand 
great  alteration  take  place  in  a  matter  of  fuch  public  notoriety, 
and  great  importance,  and  yet  no   noife   be  made   about   it ; 
no  oppofition  raifed  againft  it  ?  It  is  moa  irrational  to  fuppofe 
it.     For  there  is  a  very  particular  hiftory  of  the  rehgious  doc- 
trines,  rites,  Jifputes  and  divifions  of  the  Chriitian   church    in 
the  early  ages  of  Chri Hani ty.     And  when  any   new   religious 
fentlments  or  pradices  vrere   introduced,  it    ufed   to  occahon 
great  difputes  and  divifions.     And  there   is  generally  an  ac 
count,  when,  and  by  whom,  they  were  introduced,  and  who 
oppofed  them.     But  there  is  no  account  of  any  fuch  conten- 
tion or  divifion  about  iafant-baptifm.     Neither  can  any  perfoa 
tell,  when  or  by  whuiii,  it  ^;^•as  introduced,  if  not  by  the  apof- 
tles.    But  can  we  rallonahy  lappofe,   that  a   matter   of  fuch 
importance  and  notoriety  as  infant-baptifm  could,  direftly  con- 
trai-vto  the  pradicc  of  the  apoftles  and  all  the  churches  which 
t'r.ey  had  eftabhlhed,  be  fo  early  introduced  into  all  the   Chrlf- 
:ian  churches  withcut  any  oppofition   or   contention,  and   no 
one  be  able  to  know,  when  or  by  whom,  it  was   introduced  ? 
The  fuppofition  is  very  unreafonable.      Thefe   confiderations 
afford  an  argument  of  great  \veight,  that  infant-baptifm   was 
an  apoftolic  pradice  ;  and  thus  they  greatly   corroborate  the 
proof  in   favor   of%  which   has  been    adduced  from    the 

fcriptures.  r^,   -a- 

To  invalidate  this  argument,  it  is  urged,  that  Lhrutians,  m 
the  early  ages  of  Chi  iftianity,  appeared  to  have  wrong  ideas 
of  the  nature  and  defign  of  baptifm  ;  and  that  if  they  miftook 
in  thisrefped,  they  might  alfo  with  refped  to  thofe,  who  were 
the  proper  fubjects  of  baptilm. 

lu  aufwer  to  ih\s  it  may  be  obferved,  that  there  are  many 
perfonsin  all  Chriftian  churches  even  at  the  prefent  day,  who 
are  very  far  from  having  corrc*5l,  juft  ideas  rtf  the  nature  and 
defign  of  the  ordinances  and  inllitutions  of  the  gofpel.  Per- 
Tons  are  very  liable  to  miftake  in  their  opinions  concerning  the 
nature  and  defign  of  thefe  ordinances.  But  whether  the  apof- 
tles baptized  infant:^  or  not,  was  a  plain  matter  of  iadl,  la 
xvliich  it  was  inipoffible  for  Chriftians  who  then  lived,  to  mif- 
take. Thev  could  not  but  know,  whether  the  apoftles  bapti- 
zed children,  or  not.  And  if  they  did  not  baptize  them  ; 
then  they  mull  have  known,  when  infant-baptifm  was  firft  in- 
troduced, th:it  it  was  an  innovation,  and  contrary  to  the  a- 
poftclic  practice.  Allowing  then,  that  Chriftians  in  the  early- 
ages  oiChriftia'.v.ty,  might  have  fome  wrong  ideas   of 'Jte 


na- 


(  78  ) 

tnreand  defigit  orbaptifm  ;  yet  this  will  itot  at  all  invaliQatre 
their  teftimony  to  a  plain  matter  of  fa(5l;  when  they  decUre,- 
that  iirfant-baptilxn  was  pra^ifed  by  the  apoftles,  and  had 
been  the  praftice  of  the  Chridian  churches  ever  fmce. 

But  it  is  further  -  urged  that  infant  communion  and  other 
^rofs  errors,  as  well  as  infant-baptifm,  were  early  admitted' 
into  the  Chriftian  church. 

Ans.  Infant-baptifm  was  univerfally  prevalent  in  all  the 
Chrirtian  churches,  before  we  have  any  account  of  thefe  er- 
rors. Altho'  infant-communion  might  be  pradiled  in  fome 
churches;  yet  I  know  of  no  account,  that  it  ever  was  an  uni- 
verfal  praftice  in  ail  the  Chriftian  charches.  Neither  is  it 
aliened  by  writers  in  thofe  early  times,  that  it  was  the  prac- 
tice of  the  church  from  the  days  of  the  apoilles,  as  baptifm' 
was.  Andfo  with  refpecl:  to  the  other  grois  errors,  they  ge- 
nerally occafioned  much  difpute  and  contention  when  intro- 
duced—did  not  prevail  fo  early  as  infant  baptilm  rauft  have 
flone — and  were  never  fo  aniverfally  prevalent  in  all  parts  of 
the  Chriftian  world. 

«  The  different  feci:3  of  Chriflians  were  often  inflamed  a- 
"  gainft  each  other  by  very  fmall  differences.  It  is  therefore 
*'  utterly  unaccountable,  that  there  fhould  be  no  difpute,  when 
^^  x!ci\s  fuppofed fundamental  error  cf  infant -baptifm  was  introdu- 
*•'  ced  ;  nor  the  leafl  remains  of  any  fontrorerfy  about  it 
*'  until  within  thefe  two  or  three  hundred  years."* 

Now  what  is  there  to  counterbalance  all  this  evidence,  whiclr- 
has  been  exhibited  in  /avor  of  infant-baptifm  ?  There  is  no 
dire£l,  pofitive  evidence  againft  it ;  for  none  pretend,  that 
there  are  any  commands  or  prohibitions  againft  it.  The  argu- 
ments urged  againft  it,  are  merely  negative,  fuch  as  the  want 
of  a  command  or  example  for  it — the  direftion  to  repent,  be- 
lieve, and  be  baptized — that  it  can  do  no  good,  and  fuch 
other  objedions,  as  have  been  confidered,  and  which  as  al- 
ready ffiown,  may  be  eaflly  obviated.  It  appears,  that  there 
is  dire(ft  and  pofitive  evidence  in  favor  of  infant-baptifm,  but 
no  pofitive  proof  againft  it  ;  and  that  the  mofl  plaufible  ob- 
jeftions  agair.ft  it  arife  from  miftaken  ideas  of  the  Abrahamic" 
covenant,  or  of  the  nature  and  defign  of  baptifm.  If  thefe 
things  are  attentively  and  candidly  confidered,  will  not  the 
evidence  in  favor  of  infant-baptifm  appear  conclufive  an-i 
fadbfa^flory  to  every  unprejudiced  mind  ?  For  fince  there  is 
direfl  and  pofitive  evidence  in  favor  of  it,  and  no  pofitive  m- 

*  Do£l.  Lathrop* s  fermons  en  infant -haptifm. 


(79) 

dence  againft  it  ;  is  it  not  unreafonable  to  deny  the  duty  df 
infant-baptifm  ?  It  is  ading  againft  evidence. 

Is  it  not  ftrange  that  any  can  be  fo  oppofed  to  publicly 
confecratinp-  their  children  to  God  by  putting  the  feal  of  his 
covenant,  and  of  their  faith  upon  them  ;  as  Chrift's  ancient 
church  were  commanded  to  do  ?  Was  it  not  a  privilege,  that 
pious  parents  under  the  former  difpenfation  might  thus  dedi- 
cate their  dear  children  to  God  :  and  entertain  a  hope,  that 
the  fame  divine  bleffings  would  defcend  on  them,  as  on  their 
own  fouls  ?  Thus  Chrift,  as  to  his  human  nature,  «  was  c&a- 
*«  fecrated  to  God  ;  and  according  to  the  law,  he  was  brought 
*'  to  the  temple,  to  be  prefented  to  the  Lord.  And  ftrange  it 
"  is,  that  all  pious  parents  do  not  even  long  to  make  the  fame 
«'  vifible  confecration  of  their  children  to  the  Lord  at  this 
<«  day  !"* 

IV.  It  appears,  that  the  denial  of  infant-baptifm  has  a  ten- 
<3ency  to  lead  into  other  hurtful  errors.  It  leads  perfons  to 
fuppofe,  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  not  the  covenant 
of  grace,  requiring  faith  as  its  condition,  but  a  mere  temporal, 
external  affair  ;  and  that  therefore  circumcifion  the  token  of 
it  was  not  a  feal  of  the  faith  of  believers  as  the  apoftle  de- 
clares— that  the  Hebrew  church  was  not  the  real  vifible  churc'a 
of  God,  but  merely  a  type  of  it — that  God  did  not  in  his  co- 
venant  with  that  church  require  faith  and  a  right  heart  or  real 
religion,  as  the  condition  of  the  promifed  blefiTmgs,  but  merely 
external  obedience,  and  promifed  them  nothing  but  worldly, 
temporal  bieffirgs  upon  their  compliance — that  perfons  might 
enter  into  God's  covenant,  fulfil  all  its  requirements,  be  en- 
titled to  all  its  blelfings  and  fo  become  members  of  God's  an- 
cient church  according  to  bis  appointment,  while  impenitent 
and  enemies  to  him — that  the  Jewilh  church  was  eflentially 
different  from  the  Chriftian,  and  therefore  the  behevin'g  Gen- 
tiles were  not  graffed  into  the  fame  church  or  olive-tree,  from 
Avhich  the  unbelieving  Jews  were  broken  off,  as  the  apollle  r«- 
prelents.  Thefe  are  generally,  if  not  univerfaliy,  the  fenti- 
ments  of  our  Bapcift  brethren,  which  (hows,  that  the  denial  of 
ii-ifant-baptifm  leads  to  thefe  errors.  But  how  contrary  tbefe 
ideas  are  to  the  many  plain  exprefs  declarations  cf  God's  •^•oid, 
is  manifcft  from  what  has  been  advanced  en  this  fubjeift.  And 
thefe  their  ideas  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  of  the  Hebretv 
church  and  difpentation,  as  being  merely  external,  ceremonial, 
.:and  tempsral,  naturally  tends  to  fink  the  Old  Teftamsnt  ia 

*  A  Sernm:  hy  the  Rev,  Jacos  CaTiiM- 


(8o) 

thciT  view,  and  to  lead  them  to  confider  It  as  of  little  ufe  or 
importance  to  us,  who  are  under  a  difpenfation  fo  entirely 
different  from  the  old  one.  Hencs  it  is,  that  there  are  fo  ma- 
ny among  thofe  that  rejeft  infant-baptifm,  who  treat  the  Old 
Teftament  fo  lightly,  calling  it  but  a  type  and  (hadow,  deny- 
ing it  to  be  any  rule  to  us,  and  averting,  that  it  is  of  but  little 
ufe  to  Chriftians.  But  this  certainly  is  cafting  contempt  upon 
the  word  of  God,  and  is  confidering  all  the  inftrudions,  vi'hich 
Chrlft  communicated  to  his  church  for  four  thoufand  years 
as  of  little  confequence. 

But  how  differently  did  our  Saviour  and  his  apoftles  treat 
the  facrcd  fcriptures  of  the  Old-Teftament  ?  They  treated 
them  with  the  greateft  regard  and  reverence,  and  were  often 
quoting  from  them  to  prove  the  dodrines  they  taught. — • 
Chrift  declared,  that  if  perfons  will  not  hear,  and  be  brought 
to  repentance  by  the  writings  of  Mofes  and  the  prophets  j 
*•  neither  will  they  be  perlbaded,  tho'  one  rofe  from  the  dead." 
And  the  apoftle  declares,  that  "  All  fcripture,  [by  which  he 
meant  more  efpecially  the  Old-Teftament,  the  New  being  at 
that  time  but  partly  written]  is  given  by  infpiration  of  God, 
and  is  profitable  for  doiSrine,  inftrudion,"  3cc.  How  errone- 
ous and  hurtful  then  the  ideas  of  thofe,  who  make  fo  light  of 
the  Old-Teftament  difpenlation  ? 

Further,  their  mode  of  reafoning  againft  infant-baptifm, 
and  their  ideas  of  the  Old  Teftaniesii  t^end  to  lead  theni' to 
deny  our  obligations  to  keep  the  Chriliian  fabbath,  or  even 
any  fabbath  at  all,  as  holy  lime.  One  of  their  obje<ftions  a- 
gainft  infant-baptifm  is,  that  it  is  not  exprefsly  enjoined  in  the 
New-Teftament.  This  is  alfo  the  cafe  with  refpedl  to  the  ob- 
fervance  of  the  Chriftian  fabbatli  or  the  firft  day  of  the  week. 
The  proof  in  both  cafes  is  very  fimilar. 

Hence  it  is,  that  numbers  of  the  Baplifts  are  Sabbatarians, 
or  hold  to  the  obfervance  of  the  feventh,  inftead  of  the  firft 
day  of  the  week.  And  others  of  them,  v>ho  are  not  profefTed- 
ly  Sabbatarians,  when  reminded,  tbv;',  the  evidence  infavor  of 
infant-baptifm,  is  fimilar  to  that  in  favor  of  the  Chriftian  fab- 
hath,  ailert ;  that  we  are  not  exprefsly  bound  by  God's  word 
to"  keep  the  firft  day  of  the  v/eek  as  holy  time,  tho'  it  may  be 
well  to  do  it.  Others  go  ftill  furfher,  and  aftert,  that  a*--  ths 
Jewish  difpenfation  and  fabbath  are  done  away,  and  there  is 
no  fabbath  exprefsly  inftituted  ia  the  New-Teftament  ;  io  we 
arr  not  obligated  to  keep  one  clay  holy  more  than  another. 
For  all  days  are  alike.  And  ihiir  reafoning  againfl  infavir- 
baptifm  has  a  direfl  tendency  to  lead  them  inloAich  fcr.'.'rrer,  ..■,. 


i 


.J  (  8'  ) 

""^lit  how  dangerous  and  hurtful  thefe  errors  are,  and  of 
what  pernicious  efiFe<5ls  they  would  be  produdtive,  if  generally 
revalent  ;  the  moft  of  you  arc  doubtlefs  fenfible.  The  pre- 
alence  of  thefe  fentiments  would  greatly  tend  to  encouratre 
j^  ^tlienegleifl  of  a  religious  obfervancs  of  the  fabbath,  which  i$ 
^  the  principal  means  of  maintaining  the  knov/ledge  and  prac- 
tice of  religion  among  mankind,  and  which  was  inftituted  be- 
fore the  fall  of  man.  Since  therefore  a  denial  of  infant-bap- 
tifm  has  a  tendency  to  lead  into  fuch  hurtful  errors,  though 
doubtlefs  many  of  our  Baptift  brethren  do  not  embrace  all 
thefe  erroneous  fentiments ;  it  affords  an  additional  reafon  to 
conclude,  that  it  is  an  error.  For  the  tendency  of  one  error 
is  to  lead  into  another-* 

Another  confequence,  which  will  follow  from  the  fentiments 
of  thofe,  who  deny  infant-baptifm,  is,  that  Chrift  has  had  no 
vifible  church  in  the  world  for  upwards  of  icoo  years,  fines 
the  commencement  of  the  Chriftian  difpenfation.  They  hold, 
that  infant-baptifm  is  no  baptifm,  and  that  without  baptifm 
there  can  be  no  vifible  church  of  Chritt.  Since  therefore  it 
is  certain  from  hillory,  that  infant-baptifm  was  praflifed  in  all 
Chrillian  churches  for  moie  than  a   iogo  years;    it  follows, 

*  Sines  the  puUtJhing  afihefirfi  edition^  I  am  much  ntore  convin-' 
ad  of  the  hurtful  tendency  of  the  denial  of  infant  haptifm.,  in  tht 
particular  noiu  tneiitioKed^  I  fnd  by  ebfervation  and  infonnaticn^ 
that  thefe  erroneous  fentiments  appear  to  be  gaining  groutid  amsng 
the  Eaptifts  in  our  country,  and  are  already  lonJiJerakly  prevalent. 
Many  of  them  deny  the  fanclity  of  the  fabbathy  or  their  cbligation  to 
ohfervs  any  part  of  time  as  holy  ;  and  are  becoming  negleflful  of 
the  Lord's  day.  Numbers  of  them  reje£i  the  Old  Tejiament  alto- 
gether, as  being  'v^holly  out  of  date,  and  no  part  of  it  no'vj  binding 
ftp  on  ynankind.  Hence  many  of  them  think  very  light  tf  fabbath 
breaking,  and  oppofe  all  lani's  againfi  this.,  as  opprefion,  and  an 
infringement  upon  the  right  (  of  confcience.  From  their  di [regard 
to  the  Old  Tefiamsnt,  they  have  embraced  the  fentiment  both  in  theory 
and  practice,  that  it  is  of  very  little  confequence  'whether-  civil  magif 
trdtta  are  fearers  of  God,  and  friends  to  h:s  caufe,  or^are  openinfi* 
dels  and  irreligious  characters.  And  one  cf  their  preachers,  in  hit 
'Writings  lately  publifjed,  and  in  high  repute  among  the  Baptijis  tf 
Nenu  England,  very  plainly  manifjls  his  preference  of  infidels  t9 
religious  perfns  for  civil  rulers. \  By  their  fentiments  and  prac 
ticj.  in  thefe  particulars,  they  are  greatly  injuring  ths  caufs  cfreli' 
iX^ion,  and  encouraging  luickednefs  and  injrdelltj. 
■■  '  '  at  foo",  and  itroke  at  traucb. 
L 


vhat'Chnit  h.id  no  vifible  church  m  the  vrorld  during  ,iha"4 
period.  An  J  if  there  were  no  vilible  churches,  then  there 
were  no  viiibli  mini fters  ofChrift.  V/hat  then  became  of  the 
promife  of  our  Saviour  to  his  church  and  minifters  during  this 
period,  that  the  gates  of  hell  ihould  not  prevail  againft  it,  and 
ihat  he  would  be  with  them  always  unto  the  end  of  the  world  ? 
Could  this  be  fulfilled  if  there  were  no  vifible  minifters  or 
churches  of  Chri'l  ?  Or  can  we  fuppofe,  that  he  would  have 
i_^io  vifible  church  in  the  world  for  fo  long  a  period  ?  '•■"■ 
-'  '  'V^  In  reflcvSling  upon-the  fubje<fl:,  a  number  of  importunt 
con(ideraLions.naturally  fuggeft  themfelves  to  our  minds. 

I  ft.  Since  hapuiin  like  circumcifion  is  a  feal  or  token  of 
feiilh,  and  fo  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  it  is  evident,  that  none 
c^m  properly  or  acceptably  confecrate  their  children  to  God 
in  this  ordinance  without  faith  or  real  religion.  They  muft 
have  the  faith  of  Abraham,  in  order  to  apply  to  themselves 
or  children,  in  an  acceptable  manner,  the  feal  of  the  right- 
eoufnefs  of  faitlx^  When  therefore  perfons  apply  the  token  of 
*^4Ef  God's  covenant  to  their  children  by  dedicating  them  in  bap- 
tifm,  and  thus  profefs  to  affent  to  his  covena-nt,  whiu;  impen- 
itent ;  they  are  guilty  of  ^a  hypocritical  profefilon,  and  of. 
greatly  profaning  this  divine  and  folemn  ordinance.  Such 
a. profanation  of  baptifm  is  more  likely  to  draw  down  a  curfe 
tliaw  a  bleiriag..  ^  "'^ 

2tlly.  When  parents  confecrate  thtir  chlldrtn  to  God  in 
Vaprifm,  they  iclemnly  bind  tb^rnfclv.js  to  endeavor  to  -train 
them  up  for  God's  fervice  and  to  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture 
and  a.inionidonof  theLord.  The  v^hole  church  alio  are  ob- 
ligated to. take  care,  that  their  parents  thus  do  their  duty, 
snd  that  the  children  have  a  Chriftian  educauon  and  are  in- 
ilruaed  iH  <livnre  ihii^gs.  V\"liea ' therefore  fuch  parents  are 
i:ot  careful  to  reftraiu  their  childrtn  from  fir.ful  courfes— to 
warn  and  ixiftrudt'thein  in  divine  tilings,  and  thus  endeavor  to 
bring  tiiem  up  for  God  ;  they  violate  their  folemn  obligations 
and  enoagements.  Their  neglect  brings  guilt  on  thenifelves, 
and  it  is  ve!y  cruel  to  ths-ir  children,  as  it  tends  to  ruin  them 
forever. 

Are  not  mmY  (>*'  yo"t  Oh  p^ents,  very  negligent  and  guil. 
^'  ty  m  this  r^fpeci,  that  you  are  no  more  careiul  by  gious  ex- 
*'a'mpks,  w<irmngs  and  inftruaio«'s"  to  train  up  year  children 
for  (iud  according  to  your  folemn  engagJenients,  when  you 
CO nfeera c^d  Uiem  to  hijn  in  baptifm  ?  Are  you  not  endanger- 
ing  lihtir  'jkrnal,  interells  by  your  fmfuP  liegled,  as  -well 
Hs'b'iMgin^:  eai  gu.lc  ,upoi\  your  own  'fctls  ?    How  tlreajj' 


Wf    ^' 


1 


ful  to  think  of  being  the  means  of  dcftioying  the  ixTimortal^ 
Ibalsof  your  dear  offspving^  by  your  uniailbfalners  ?  As  there- 
fere  you  regard  your  own  eternal  good  or  that  of  your  chiU 
dren,  be  intrcated  faithfully  to  {"nllil  yom  folcmn  cngagemeiits 
rind  obligations  by  carefully  rellraining  thym  from  linliil  cour- 
f^s,  and  bringing  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  adrr.oniucn  of' 
the  Lord. 

The  church  alfo  are  guilty,  of  a  criminal  neglect,  when  the  v. 
ilo  net  take  cave,  that  parents  are  thus  faithful,  and  that  ihs 
•:  hildren  have  a  Chrillran  education. 

jdly.  SJDcc  it  appears  from  our  fubjc6l,  that  it  is  the  duty 
cf  believers  to  apply  the  feasor  token  of  their  faith  to  their 
children,  and  thus  publicly  confecrate  them  to  God,  as  did 
Abraham  the  father  of  all  believers  ;  it  is  evident  that  this  is 
an  importanr  tranfaclion,  and  a  proper  perfoi  mance  of.  it  Is 
ufeful  and  beneficial,  whether  we  are  able  to  difcern  the  good 
eiFe<S3  of  it  sr  not.  Suppofing  we  could  not  be  able  to  dil- 
rern  the  particular  benefits  of  it,  yet  this  would  be  no  proof, 
that  it  v/as  not  beneliciah  But  we  can  fee,  how  it  may  b-i 
ufeful  in  feveral  refpedts  both  to-  parents  and  children.  In 
this  tranfaciion  parents  renew  covenant  with  God,  are  re- 
Diinded  of  their  obligations  to  give  up  all  to  him,  of  their  pe- 
culiar obligations  to  train  up  their  children  for  him,  and  of 
the  need  their  children  ftand  in  of  divine  grace  or  the  wafliing 
of  regeneration.  It  may  be  advantageous  to  children,  as  it 
lays  their  parents  and  the  church  under  peculiar  obligations 
to  fee,  that  they  are  brought  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonitlo.'v 
of  the  Lord. 

In  this  refpeS  we  can  fee  the  beneficial  tendency  of  inlant- 
baptifm  both  to  parents  and  children. 

In  addition  to  this,  God  can  add  his  pecuhar  blefiing  to  a 
'^- proper  cbfervance  of  this  divine  ordinance,  as  he  generally^ 
does  to  a  right  obfervance  of  his  other  pnfitive  infuturions. 
He  can  as  eafily  addhisbleffing  to  the  pradice  of  infant-bap- 
tiim,  and  render  it  beneficial,  as  he  can  to  the  obfervance  of 
the  Lord's  fupper,  public  worlhip,  or  any  other  divine  ordi- 
nance. For  none  of  thefe  inflitutions  will  be  of  any  benefit,, 
unlefs  attended  with  a  divine  bleffing.  As  there  was  much' 
profit  in  circumcifion,  fo  there  is  much  reafon  to  conclude,  that 
baptifm,  v,'hich  new  ftands  in  its  ftead,  is  equally  advanta- 
geous. Thofe  therefore  who  deny  or  neglect  the  duty  of  pub- 
licly confecrating  their  children  to  God  in  baptifm,  cut  off 
rhsmfdves  and  children  from  thefe  benefits  or  bUiTing^s.    And. 


cot  only  fo,  but  their  negle(fl  of  this  divine  ordinance  mufi:  be 
difpleafing  to  God  andexpofe  them  to  his  frowns. 

VI.  Before  I  conclude,  I  mud  exprefs  my  regret  m  being 
under  the  difagreeable  neceflity  of  introducing  this  controver- 
fy  into  the  pulpit  at  the  prefent  time.  Altho'  rcquefted  feve- 
ral  times  of  late,  1  had  determined  not  to  preach  vpon  the 
fubjeft  at  prefent,  lell  it  fliould  take  off  yonr  attention,  my 
he:irers,  from  concerns  of  greater  importance,  and  hinder  the 
revival  of  religion,  v/ith  which  God  has  mercifully  favored 
us.  But  as  the  Baptifts  have  repeatedly  preached  upon  the 
fubjedt  among  us,  and  have  pofitively  aflerted,  that  no  evi- 
dence can  be  produced  from  the  bible  in  favor  of  infant-bap- 
tifm,  and  that  thofe  who  join  our  chmxhes,  have  no  evidence 
but  tradition,  or  the  mere  aflertions  of  their  minifters  ;  it  ap- 
peared to  be  duty  to  exhibit  from  fcripture  the  evidence,  on 
■«vhich  vi'e  proceed  ;  that  we  might  vindicate  our  praflice 
from  fuch  unjuft  afperfio«s,  and  ihow  the  fallehood  of  fuch 
vain  boafting  affertions.  And  novt^  I  am  ready  to  appeal  to 
every  one,  of  whatever  denomination  who  has  candidly  at- 
tended to  what  has  been  fuggelted  on  the  fubje^t,  whether 
fuch  pofitive  affertions  and  charges  againft  thofe,  who  prac- 
tife  infant-baptifm,  are  not  unjuft  j  and  do  not  favor  too  much 
«f  a  vain  felf-confldence. 

Finally,  it  belioveth  us  all  to  enquircj  whether  we  have,  hj 
a  cordial  faith  been  grafFed  into  the  good  olive-tree,  become 
interefted  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  thus  made  partakers 
of  the  bleflings  of  Abraham.  It  is  by  faith  only,  that  we  can 
have  a  real  ftanding  in  this  covenant  and  in  the  church  cf 
Chrift,  be  the  feed  of  Abraham,  "  and  heirs  according  to  the 
promife."  As  God's  ancient  people,  were  "  becaufc  of  unbe- 
lief" broken  oif  from  their  vifiblc  ftanding  in  this  church,  and 
Tvere  deprived  of  all  its  privileges  and  bleflings  ;  we  ftould 
••be  not  high-minded,  but  fear."  «'  For  if  God  fpared  not 
the  natural  branches,"  he  certainly  will  not  fpare  us,  if  we  re- 
axiain  impenitent.  Without  a  cordial  union  to  Ghriil,  we  Ihall 
not  be  benefited  by  his  atonement — for  thofe  who  believe 
not,  are  condemned  already.  And  unlefs  we  arc  united  to 
him  by  faith  and  love — are  in  him,  as  the  branch  is  in  the 
vine  ;  we  Ihall  be  caft  forth  as  withered  branches,  and  be  burnt 
■with  unquenchable  fire.  It  is  therefore  infinitely  important 
to  each  one  of  us,  tliat  we  be  graffed  into  the  good  olive-tree, 
and  become  interefted  in  the  covenant  of  grace  :  otherwife  we 
fhall  be  forever  excluded  from  the  glorious  bleflings  of  the 
gofpel. — And  there  will  be  "  v/eeping  and  gaafliing  of  teeth, 


(85) 


v^he-i  ye  fiialiree  Abraltam,Ifaacand  Jacob,  an  J  all  the  r"- 
phnsinthe  Icingdom  of  heaven,  and  you  yourfeWes  thiuft 
cm  "  A'ld  thoie  parents,  who  are  out  ofChnll,  or  are  neg- 
ligent oEii/ine  thin-S  are  bringing  ruin  I'Ot  only  upon  ihcra- 
fclves,  but  alio  upon  their  dear  children.  They  do  not  de- 
vote them  to  God  in  faith,  neither  do  they  ti am  them  up  for 
him  in  the  ways  of  pisty  ;  nor  have  ever  once  fmcerely  prayed 
God  to  have  mercy  upon  them.  On  the  contrary  their  im- 
penitence, difr.bedlence,  and  oppofition  to  God,  tend  to  draw 
.iown  his  difpleafure  upon  themfeives  and  families,  and    taefr 


\ 


.udown  his  dilpleaiure  upon  [ncuiitivc^  a...^  .»....-....,  .-"-    — 
i^il  examples  and  negledt  of  relision  tend  to  lead  their  children 
with  them  to  deftruaion.  i  T,^ 

Are  there  not  a  great  number  of  you,   my   hearers,  who 
areailloutofChriftandhavenotitle  to  the   bleffings  of  the 
covenant  of  grace  ?  Your  ftate,  O  finners,  is  awfully  wretched. 
You  have  nothing  to  Ihelter   you^^rom  the  cixrfes  of  Gods     . 
holvlaw.     Yoahangoverthepitof  duftruaion   by   nothing 
buc  the  flender  thread  of  hfc,  which  is  Uable  every  moment  to 
be  cut  afunder  ;  and   unlefs  you  foon  become  reconcded  to 
God,  and  cordially  embrace  the  Saviour,  you  xyul  be   undone 
fo^ev-      T^hefituatinnof  thofepfyou,   who    have  remained 
'carelefs  during  this  revival  of  religion,  or    who,    after  being 
awakened,  have  gone   back    again  to   a  Rate  of  aupidity.   is 
dreadfully  dangerous.     There  is  reafon  to  fear,  that  the  fpir- 
it  of  God  i£  about  to  depart  from  us  in  its    awakening  influen- 
ces   and  many  of  you  appear  by  your    condud,  ^^^^  Y^^ 
wilhed  to  provoke  him  to  leave  you.     But  what  w.  1  be  ome 
of  vou.fliouldthefpiritot  God  depart  from    yoa?    If  loft   to 
Tourfelves,  jou  will  certainly  go  on  in  your  fins,  treafunng  up 
Irath  a^ainft  the  day  of  wrath.     How  wicked  and-  dangerous 
then  to  do  any  thing,  -^"hich  will  tend  to  quench  the    ftnvmgs 
oLtheholvlflint,  or  to  provoke   him  to    leave    you?  Should 
tkrevivalnovv  ceafcandHiould  there  be  no   more  awaken- 
ings  for  ro  vears  to  come,  than  there  hive  been  for  50  years 
Ja  :  would  not  ihe  greater  part  of  you,  who  are  m   a    Itate 
of  impenitence,  die  in  your  fins,  and  go  down   to  deftruction  ?  ^ 
Tl"  thought  isvery  t;emendous.     However  light  any  of  you  ^ 
ma;  make    of  thefe    things;  yet  your   Chnftian  friends  are 
nembling  for  your  immortal  fouls.     Have  not   you  therefore 
^uThgriter  reafon  to  fear  and  trefeble  for   yourfelves  ?  You 
have  blen  favored  w-ith  a   pecuhar  leafon-fuch  a  ^^-f^n,  as 
but  few  generations  are  favored  with.     God  has  come  down 
amon.  you  bv  the  influences  of  his  h.ly   fpint-has  awaken- 
ed the'atrcntion  of  numbers,  who,  we  hope,  havefct  forward 


(S6} 

towards  heaven',  and  doubtlefs  he  has  alfo  knocked  at  the  door 
of  your  hearts.     But  you  have  neglected  his  calls,  refifted  the- 
ftrivings  of  his  fpirit,  and  now  God  feems  to  be  departing  from 
you.     Therefore  there  is  great  danger,  that  you   will  be  left 
to  go  on  in  your  fins,  and  bring   upon  yourfelves  an   aggra- 
vated condemnaiion.     For  Ihould    you  periih,  all   thefe  calls 
and  warnings  will  rife  up  in  judgement  againft   you,  and  will' 
greatly  increafe  your  guilt  and  mifery.     For  to   whom    much" 
is  given,  of  them  much  will  be  required.     God  may  juftly  fay  .^ 
to  you,  *'  Becaufe  I  have  called,  and  ye  have  refufed — hay^^ 
iet  at  nought  all  my  counfels,    and   would   none  of  my  re-if? 
proof:   I  alfo  will  laugh  at  your  calamity,  I  will  mock  when^ 
your  fear  Cometh."    "Then  fhall  they  call  upon  me,  but  I 
will  not  anfwer ;  they  (hall  feek  me  early,   but  they  Ihall  not" 
find  me  "     How  will  it  aggravate  your   mifery,  ihould    you 
neglect  and  fiill  fliort,   to  reimember  what   opportunities  you 
liave  mifirnproved  ;  and  to  confider,  how  your  acquaintance 
and  companions  engaged  in  religion,  and  fecureaf   immortal: 
glory  and  felicity;  while  you  neglefted  your  eternal  concerns- 
for  the  vain  tranfitory  pleafures,  pofTsffions,  and  enjoyments  of" 
this  world  ?  How  cutting  v^ill  be  the  refledion,  that  for  thefe 
momentary  enjoyments,  you  loft  the  endlefs  joys  of  heaven, 
and  plunged  into  remedilefs  woe  ?  Will   not  the   thoughts  of" 
your  felly  add  greatly  to  your  wretchednefes  ?  Why  then  will 
you  not  be  perfuaded  in  this  your  day  to  make  your  peace  with 
God,  to   engage  in  religion  i  For  "  her  ways   are  ways    of 
pleafantnefs  and  all  her  paths  are  peace."    It  will   afford  you^ 
an  unfailing  fource  of  comfort  and  fupport  under  al!  the  evils' 
and  troubles  of  life,  will  fupport  in  the  hour  of  death,. and  yield' 
•everlaUing  felicity  beyond  the  grave.     Ame>?. 


S7) 


AN  APPENDIX, 


•yCf^  CONTAINING  A 

j^^-  LETTER  TO  THE  AUTHOR, 

Shix'mg  that  no  one  fuirtkular    MODE  of  applying    ivatert 

to  the  e:iclufim  of  all  others,  is   ES5ENTUL  to  the 

VALWnr  of  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


I 


Rev.  Sir, 

RECEIVED  a  note  from  you,  requefting  me  to  fend  yon 
_^  my  thoughts,  on  the  mode  of  Baptifm,  that  they  may  be 
publifhed,  as  an  appendix  t©  your  fermons.  I  comply.  But 
fo  much  has  been  already  written  on  this  fubjedt,  that  I  con- 
ceive  you  will  not  wl(h  me  to  do  more  than  is  neceffary  to  a 
•  brief  view  of  the  matter  propofed. 

I  conceive  it  very  important  to  afcertain  the  proper  fub- 
jefts  of  this  ordinance.  But  to  me  it  appears,  that  the  mode 
of  applying  water  in  baptifm,  though  not  altogether  indiffer- 
ent, is  of  lefs  confequence  ;  and  that  neither  fprinkling,  nor 
imnierfion,  is  exclufively  effential  t©  the  vaHdity  of  the  ordi- 
nance. I  ihould  therefore  confider  it  unneceffary  to  publlfu 
any  thing  on  the  fubjeft,  were  it  not,  that  there  are  Chriftians, 
who  not  only  conceive  that  the  mode  is  elfential  ;  but  who 
refufe  communion  with,  and  virtually  excommunicate  thi 
greateft  part  of  the  church  of  Chiift,  not  only  on  account  of  the 
Tubjedsof  baptifm,  but  alfo  of  the  mode  in  which  they  have 
been  baptized  ;  and  hold  it  effential  to  the  validity  of  the  or^ 
dinance,  that  it  be  adminiftercd  by  a  total  imanerfion  ofth^ 
bcdy.     It  th-^rcfore  becomes  necefiary  to  examine  the  fabjec?.. 


f 


(  S8  ) 


"^ 


For  it  muft  be  wrong  to  do  all  this,  on  grounds  not  warranted  jj 

by  the  word  of  God.     My  dellgn  is  to    fliovv  from    the    holy  % 

fcriptures,    that   hmnerfton   is    ?tot   mcejary  to  the   Validity  of   A 

Crijiian  Bapftfvu  -^,,  ' 

I.     I  begin  by  making  feme  cJbffeVvatlons  on  the   meaning 

^^  g-  of  the  Greek  woid  Baptizo,  from  which    the  word   Baptifm  is 

*"  ■'  derived,  as  it  is  ufed  by  Chriil  and  his  apoftles.     It  is  of  litde 

confequence  to  enquire  how  this  word  has  been  ufed  by  w^^, 
:    ^^      ,,ters  in  other  ages.     It  is  fufEcient,  if  we    can   find  how  it  ,1S     i 
ywKS^   •''always  ufed  in  the  New-Teftament.     This  word  is  ufed,  in  itsVe 


I 


W. 


veral  variations,  in  theNew-Teftament,  not  only  for  the  ordinance 
;0.f  Chriftian  baptifm,  but  for  other  ceremonial  and  religious 
nvaftings.*  Let  us  examine  whether,  in  fuch  cafes,  it  de- 
rotes  immerfion.  This  may  help  to  fix  its  meaning,  when 
applied  to  the  Chriftan  ordinance.  This  word  is  ufed  for  the 
cut  pauring  of  the  Koly  Spiiit  on  the  day  of  Pentecoft. 
*'  John  truly  baptized  with  water  ;  but  ye  (hall  be  baptized^ 
with  the  Holy  Ghoft,  not  many  days  hence."  Which  took 
place  at  the  time  nnw  mentioned,  according  to  this  predidion, 
and  according  to  the  prophecy  of  Joel.  "  And  it  Ihall  ccme 
to  pafs  in  the  laft  days,  (faith  God)  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit 
upon  all  ftefti."  The  fame  word  is  again  ufed  in  the  fame 
fenfe  by  Peter,  in  reference  to  the  defceiit  of  the  Holy  Ghcfl 
on  the  aifembly  at  the  houfe  of  Cornelius.  "  Then  remem- 
bered I  the  word  of  ihe  Lord,  how  he  faid,  John  indeed  bap- 
tized witlfHvater  ;  but  ye  Ihall  be  haptlzed  with  the  Holy 
Ghon,."J  On  a  careful  examinalicn,  I  c^lnot  find  a  fngle 
inftance,  except  where  the  ordinance  in  qiicftion  is  refpefteci, 
in  which  immerfinn  is  clearly  denoted  by  the  word  :  hut 
■whenever  it  refpeAs  the  ufe  of  water,  it  apparently  fignifies 
fprinkling,  or  afFj{ion,and  in  fome  in  fiances  this  is  unquef- 
tionahle.  I  will  mention  feveral  indariC.es.  This  word  is 
twice  ufed  in  one  verfe.  "And  when  they  come  from  the 
market,  except  they  waflij  (baptize)  they  eat  not.  Andtirna- 
.rf  ny  other  things  there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold, 
JjU'as  the  wafiiings^  (haptifivs)  of  cups  and  pots  brazen  vciTt ' 
and  tables."      Here   the   word  denotes   pouiing   on   wat 

*  I cafi7ieffnd  that  Baptizo  is  evsr  , ufed  in  the  Greek  Tcfa' 
metit  to  denote  any/  Wafhings,  hut  fuch  as  iveir  sfieaned  cf  a  reli-^, 
gious  nature.  All  ether  ivajl:it!gs  are  exprepd  by  Nipto  LouOijr" 
fome  other  nvord  ;    hut  never  by  Baptizo.  ,.;,- 

f  BaptiJIheffoe,  A^s  i.  5.  ^X  A<^H  ;:i.  16. 


(89) 

•RfhicTi  was  the  cuftom  in  which  the  Jews  wafted  their  hands, 
as  Elilha  poured  water  on  the  hands  of  Elijah.  And  howe- 
ver they  might  wafh  their  cups  and  pots,  their  tables  were  too 
large  to  be  conveniently  waJhed  in  any  other  way,  and  pro- 
bably thefe  walhings  were  a  kind  of  imitation  of  the  purifi- 
cation of  the  veflels  of  the  fanftuary,  which  was  done  by 
ff  rinkling.*  The  fame  word  is  ufed  in  the  i'ame  manner, 
where  it  is  faid  that  the  Pharifee  marvelled,  that  Jefas  had  not 
firft  waflied  (baptized )\  before  meat,  which  the  Pharifees 
confidered  as  a  religious  rite. 

The  apoftle,  in  his  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  exprefsly  calls 
the  Mofaic  fprinklings  baptifms,  where  he  fays,  that  that  ritu- 
al "  ftood  only  in  meats,  and  drinks,  and  diverfe  wafliings 
(baptiftHs." )X  Which  he  illultrates,  by  inftancing  the  blood 
of  buUs,  and  goats,  and  the  afhes  of  an  heifer,  fprinkling  the 
unclean — and  the  blood  of  calves,  and  goacs,  with  water,  with 
■which  Mofes  fprinkhd  the  book,  and  all  the  people,  and  like- 
wife  his  fprinkling  with  blood  the  tabernacle,  and  all  the  vef^ 
.fels  of  the  n.iniftry.  Since  therefore  tlie  word  tranflated  bap- 
tize, as  ufed  in  the  New-Teltament,  ufually,  and  for  ought  I 
can  difcover,  always  denotes  fprinkling  or  affufion,  when  it 
relates  to  the  ufe  of  water,  and  does  not  refpect  the  Chriftlan 
ordinance,  it  is  evident  that  when  it  is  ufed  for  this  ordinance 
it  does  not  necejfarily  denote  immerfion  ;  but  may  in' port 
fprinkling  or  pouring  on.  And  here  it  is  proper  to  obferve 
further,  that  the  Greek  word  Bapto,  which  properly  fignifies 
^*  «///>,  and  is  fo  ufed  in  the  New-Tertament, II  and  is  the  only 
word  that  is  fo  tranflated  in  it,  is  always  avoided,  when  Chrif- 
tian  baptifm  is  intended. 

II.  Another  argument  againft  the  neceffity  of  immerfion, 
in  the  adminiftration  of  tins  oidinance,  arifes  from  the  con- 
fidcratiofl,  that  there  is  neither  precept,  nor  example  for  it,  in 
the  Nev.-Teftament.  Thefe  have  been  diligently  fought  for, 
by  the  advocates  for  immerfion,  and  with  great  propriety  ; 
for  if  thefe  cannot  be  found,  it  muft    be  abundantly  evident 

*  Levit.  viii.  1 1.  f  Ebaptijihe,  Luke  xi.  3!. 

X  Bapti/tnois,  Heb.  ix.  10,  &c. 
II  John  xiii.  26.  and  Kev.  xix.  13.  Jf  Bjptizo  veceffhrily 
figr.ijitd  TO  d;p,  //  ay  ouldfclloiv,  that  ixihen  tks  jeivj  coj?ie  frovi 
market,  "  ey.upt  they  dip,  or  are  ivn/t:-rfed  in  ivater,  ihey  -.at  mt  ;" 
and  that  the  Pharifee  marvelled  that  Jefu:  had  not  firjt  dipped 
hivifelfin  fwater  before  meat.  But  no  one  ftppcfis  thmt  in  ttcje 
irfjatice:  tht  'v:erd  hai  ttisJ'igni^cai:or.. 
M 


(  9°  )  " 

from  this  fingle  confideration  alone,  that  God,  who  fo  minute- 
ly defcribed  every  circumftance  relative  to  the  Mofaic  ceremo- 
nies, and  has  in  this  cafe  given  no  particular  direflions,  in  what 
mode  the  water  fhould  be  applied  in  baptifm,  does  not  confi- 
der  it  e/Tential  to  the  validity  of  the  ordinance.  For  fuch  direc- 
tions would  have  been  abfolutely  necefl'ary,  if  iinirtrficn  was 
CiTential.  It  has  however  been  urged,  that  "what  the  apoftle 
fays,  Kcb.  X.  22.  ought  to  be  confidered  as  having  the  force 
cf  a  precept.  *'  Let  us  draw  near,  with  a  true  heart,  in  full 
afiiirance  of  faith,  having  our  bodies  'wafhei*  with  pure  wa- 
ter.^'  If  this  text  refpeded  the  ordinance  of  baptifm,  it  would 
not  ^'cr^^'r/^  imply  immerfion  ;  for  bodies  v:ay  be  wafhed  by 
fprinklirg  and  putting  water  on  them.  Nor  would  it  necef- 
farily  imply,  that  the  whole  body  ftould  be  waftied.  For 
-when  a  certain  woman  poured  ointment  on  the  head  only  of 
our  Lord,  he  faid  that  ihe  came  to  annoint  his  bcdy.f  And 
when  he  waflied  his  difciples' feet,  he  faid  to  Peter,  who  defi- 
xed  not  only  to  have  his  feet  waflied  ;  but  alfo  his  hands  and 
his  head,  "  Ke  that  is  walhed,  needeth  not,  fave  to  wafh  his 
feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit.":f  But  the  words,  "Having 
our  hearts  fprinkled  from  an  evil  confcience,  and  our  bodies 
waflied  w  ith  pure  water,"  have  no  refpe^fl  to  the  ordinance  of 
baptifm.  The  apoftle  was  not  treating  on  this  fiibje«ft  ;  but 
on  fandification  :  and  the  obvious  meaning  is  the  fandlifica- 
tion  both  of  the  inner  and  the  outward  man — the  afiedions 
and  the  condud.  And  it  v/ill  not  be  pretended,  that  there 
is  any  other  dire<5t  precept  for  immerfion. 

And  as  to  example?,  John  the  Baptift,  or  Baptizer,^  is  the 
fi;  ft  recorded  in  the  New-Teflament,  that  ever  baptized.     But 

*  'QOi^Xizohi  its  feveral  ternitnationst  is  ahvays  ufed  In  tie 
original,  ^j:hett  baptifm  is  intatded.  But  the  ivcrd  here  iravjia' 
ted  wafned,  is  leloumtnoi,  froifi  louo,  ajid  therefore  das  7iot 
?/h-a:i  baptized. 

f  Matlh.  iu.  16.  t  John  xiii.  10. 

§  The  nvordYrApuii  in  the  cririrfi/,  /V  Baptiftes,  ^W/V  derhed 
ir,7}ie(Jiuteh,  net  fio?ii  Bapto  to  dip  ;  hutfrvm  Baptize  to  hapt:zey 
and  th'Ci-cfore  does  not  fignify  a  Dipper  as  Jovie  have  reprefcnted  ; 
hut  a  Baptizer.  'Ihoje  'who  fay  y  itfignipes  a  dipper ^  appeal  to.  en 
did  Dutch  travfalion  of  tho pafc.ge.  But 'vchik  ivc  are  in  fcjjff- 
/]on  cfthi-  Grceii  original ^  no  trarfrJion  can  he  ackncwledgcd  as  c.n 
euttority. — But  as  the  I'.-crd  BafHf  is  comwcrdy  vfd  to  der.rAe 
ile  AKtipt'^d'j-BL^^tf,  1  ht\i.e  in  this    ktter   coifonued    to  genet al 


(90 

k  IS  no  where  told  u.;,  what  mode  be  ufed.  This  Is  not  pre- 
tended. It  is  only  faid,  th;xt  from  a  number  of  expreffions,  it 
•is  highl)'  probable,  that  it  was  immcdlon.  Let  thefe  e.^piei- 
lions  and  circurallances  be  examined. 

We  are  informed,  that  '*  \?'hen  Jcfus  was  baptized,  he  came 
"up  out  ofji  the  water."  Bat  the  v/ord  tranflated  aJ  of,  is 
often  tranflated  frov^,  and  might  have  been  juniy  io  rendered 
in  this  paffanjc  ;  and  therefore  does  not  prove,  that  be  fo  n)uch 
2s  liepped  his  feet  into  the  water  ;  much  lefs  that  his  whole 
body  was  buried  in  it. 

Bcftdes  :  Chrill  was  an  high-prieft.  And  accoi-ding  to  the. 
Mofaic  law,  the  priefts  were  to  enter  on  their  office  at  thirty 
years  of  age  ;*■  and  were  to  be  confecrated  to  it,  by  being 
■wafhed  with  water.  And  a  brazen  laver  was  made,  and'  va- 
ter  put  into  it,  for  them  to  wafh  their  hands  and  their  feet, 
which  is  the  only  walbing,  that  is  particularized  of  them. 
Chritl  therefore  waited  until  all  the  people  were  baptized,^, 
that  he  miglit  attain  the  proper  age,  and  was  then  immedi- 
ately baptized,  not  like  others,  for  the  remiffion  of  fms,  for  he 
had  none  ;  but  as  a  confecration  to  his  office.  And  this  is 
tlie  more  evident,  becaufe  it  was  not  until  that  time,  that  he 
entered  upon  his  public  miniftry,  which  thenceforth  he  profe- 
ctited  thro' lif°.  And  inftead  of  being  anointed  v/ith  oil,  as 
ftther  priefts  were,  he  was  publicly  anointed  with  the  Holy 
Ghoft.  It  is  therefore  at  lea  ft  as  reafonable  to  believe,  that 
only  his  hands  and  feet  were  waihed,  as  that  he  was  totally 
immerfed.  His  baptifm  was  doubtlefs  lo  far  according  to 
law,  as  to  fulfil  all  righteoufnefs  in  his  confecration  to  the 
priefts' office.  Befid^s,  the  baptifm  of  Chrift,  being  a  confe- 
cration to  the  priellhood,  can  be  no  certain  exampls  for  us,  rzi- 
peding  either  the  age  or  manner  of  baptifm,  unlefs'we  alfo 
would  enter  upon  th(?  fame  office. 

The  only  re^ubn  that  can  be  affigned  from  the  fcriptures, 
why  John  baptized  vi\  (or  as  it  might  be  as   correctly   tranf- 

li  Matth.  ill.  1 6.  A'^o  here  tranflated  out  of,  //  tranjlaied 
from  Rev.  xviii.  14.  And  the  fruits  that  thy  foul  lufeth  ofte-y 
are  departed  (apo)  from  thee.,  and  all  the  things  'vjhich  ivere  dain- 
ty and  goodly  are  departed  (apo)  from  thee. 

*  Exod.  xxix.  4.  and  XX.X.  l8.  ^  Luke  iii.  il. 

%  Matth.  iii.  6.  En  here  tranfatcd  in,  //  often  tranfated  at. 
John  li.  23.  No'ivivksn  he  nuas  at  Jerufalem  (en)  -Mthe  pnffo- 
ver.  Alfo  John  iv.  45.  All  the  tk'ivgs  that  he  did  (en)  at  Jeru-- 
falsm,{zu)-^lihifeafi. 


(90 

lated  at)  Jordan,  was  becaufe  he  preached  there  j  it  betrig 
near  Jerufalem,  and  the  populous  parts  of  the  country,  and 
therefore  convenient  for  muhitudes  to  attend  on  his  miniftry  * 
But  at  another  time,  we  read  that  he  baptized  in  Enon,  be- 
caufe there  was  much  water  there.  This  has  been  urged 
as  a  proof  that  he  baptized  by  immerfion.  But  if  we  could 
affign  no  other  reafonfor  his  chufing  a  place  of  much  water, 
"We  could  not  be  warranted  in  averting,  that  there  was  no  o- 
ther  reafon  ;  nor  that  this  was  his  mode.  And  if  people  had 
never  heard  of  this  mode  of  baptizing,  I  do  not  think,  that 
this  pafTage  would  have  fo  much  as  fuggefted  the  idea  of  im- 
merfion  to  their  minds  ;  but  they  would  have  rationally  con-» 
eluded,  that  when  vaft  numbers  were  flocking  to  hear  his  in- 
ftruftions,  and  were  many  of  them  under  the  awakening  and  re- 
newing pow^er  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  defirous  to  continue 
tvith  him  as  much  as  poflible,  it  war,  neceffary  that  he 
fhould  chufe  a  place,  when  he  was  in  the  wildemefs,  that  was 
•Well  fupplied  with  water.  It  was  neceffary  for  the  refrefh- 
ment  of  his  hearers,  &  the  beafls  on  which  they'rode,  with  drink 
and  other  provifions  ;  for  in  thofe  warm  countries  efpecially, 
the  places  well  watered  are  ufually  moft  produdive  of  food, 
for  both  man  and  beaCt.  His  chufing  that  place  therefore,  in 
a  country  where  water  is  exceedingly  fcarce,  as  this  palfage 
proves  it  was,  is  of  little  weight,  to  furnilh  a  conclufion  which 
involves  the  validity  of  a  Chritlian  ordinance,  that  is  no  where 
faid  to  depend  on  the  mode  of  applying  water.  I  cannot  fee 
that  there  is  any  evidence,  that  John  adminillered  baptifm  by 
fmmerfion. 

But  it  is  again  cited,  in  proof  of  immerfion,that  Philip  and 
the  eunuch  went  down  both  h2to  the  water,  and  came  up  cut  of 
the  water,  v/hen  the  latter  was  baptized.*  The  words  tranf- 
lated  into,  and  out  of.,  might  have  been  as  cotredly  tranflated 
to,  SiVidi  from,  which  is  fufficient  to  (how,  that  they  afford  no 
evidence  that  he  wa-  immerfed.  And  the  circumftances  of 
the  cafe  were  fuch,  th.it  it  was  neceffary  that  they  fhould  go 
down  to,  and  come  up /Jew  the  waterj  in  order  that  baptifm 
right  be  adminillered  in  any  mode  and  they  then  go  their 
Way  }     and   this   is    all    that   the  ,  words  prove  that    they 

*  Ai5\s,  viii.  3?.  The  nuorJs  here  tranjlated  into  and  out  of, 
are  eis  and  ek.  Eis  //  often  rendered  to.  So  Chriji  directed  Pe^ 
ter.  Matt.  xvii.  27.  to  go  (eis)  to  the  fea,  and  caji  an  hooky  i!fc. 
Jind  ek  //  tranjlated  kouiy  Luke  xi.  13. — She  (tki^  queen  cf  the 
JouMj)  cams  (ek)  trom  the  utmajl  ^arts  of  the  earth,  lix. 


(»3) 

did.  But  even  if  they  ftepped  in«-o  the  water,  there  is  nothing 
to  (how  how  Phihp  appUed  the  water  to  the  fubje(5t  of  baptifm. 
But  if  the  words  rendered  into  and  out  of,  mujl  mean  buried 
in  the  water,  iho'  they  expreis  no  iuch  thing,  then  both  muji 
have  been  buried ;  for  certainly,  according  to  the  text,  both 
■went  down  alike  int6,  and  came  up  out  (j/the  water. 

I  do  not  know  of  any  other  examples,  that  our  Baptift 
brethren  bring  to  prove  the  neceffity  of  a  total  immerfion  in 
baptifm  ;  unlefs  perhaps  the  inftance  of  Lydia,  who  was  by 
the  fide  of  a  river  when  Ihe  believed.  But  whether  fhe  wa« 
bapti/ed,  and  had  her  houfchold  baptized  at  the  river,  or  at 
her  own  door,  is  altogether  uncertain. 

And  now,  how  incunclufive  are  all  thefe  examples,  which 
are  brought  forward  to  fupport  the  neceffity  of  immerfion  ? 
The  mode  of  applying  water  is  not  fo  much  as  mentioned,  iii 
any  one  of  thefe  inltances,  nor  is  any  thing  faid,  that  implies, 
or  gives  us  a  right  to  conclude,  that  immerfion  was  ufed. 

But  fuppofing  that  it  could  be  made  to  appear  probable, 
that  John  adminiltersd  baptifm  in  this  mode;  which  is  cer- 
tainly without  proof  from  the  fcriptures,  and  refts  on  mere 
conjecflure  ;  and  fuppofing  that  his  example  were  a  pattern 
for  our  imitation,  in  the  adminiftration  of  Chriftian  baptiim, 
which  is  by  no  means  evident,  the  refult  would  be  only  this, 
that  it  is  probable,  that  baptifm  fiiould  be  adminiftered  by  im» 
merfion.  But  further,  if  it  could  be  even  prov^ed,  that  he  im- 
merfed,  it  would  not  certainly  follow  that  the  baptifm,  which 
Chrill  inftituted,  after  his  refurredion,  when  all  types  and 
fliadows  were  done  away,  was  adminiftered  in  the  fame  mode.* 

*  What  Ims  been  already  faid,JJjo'ws  that  there  is  no  evidence ^ 
that  John  baptized  by  iimnerfK^n  ;  but  fince  our  brethren  injtji 
-much  on  his  baptifm^  and  profefs  to  fcllo'w  him  in  their  mode.,  it  may 
h  lueli  enough  to  enquire  ivhai  John's  baptifm  ivas  ;  for  if  it  nvat 
r.ct  the  prefent  Chrifian  ordinance,  it  'would  not  he  f efficient  to  eflah~ 
iifj)  the  i node  for  aj-,  even  though  bis  nude  could  be  made  clearly 
mahifefl. 

I .  Jckft's  baptifn  ivas  not  an  ancient  Jeivilh  rite  ;  for  there 
is  no  fuch  inflitution  to  be  feen  in  the  Mofaic  ritual.  Nor  did  the 
chief  priefis  and  Levites  knonu  of  ar.y  fuch  rite,  for  if  they  had  thef 
nuould  not  have  afked  him,  as  they  did  ivly  he  I  apt  i  zed,  if  he  ivere 
neither  the  Chrifl,  nor  Elias,  nor  yet  that  prophet.  And  ivhen 
Chriji  afked  them  of  the  baptifn  of  John,  'whence  it  'was,  had  there 
been  fuch  an  inflitution  in  their  ritual,  they  'would  ?sot  have  'willing' 
ly  betrayed  their  ignorance,  by  anfwering,  we  cannot  tell. 


(94) 

It  y?as  then  that  Chiift  commiffioned  his  minifters  to  "  tsacft 
all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
theSon,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft."  And  the  inflances  of  bap- 
tifm  after  Chrill's  refune»^Ion,  that  Itand  on   record,   do   not 

±.  Nor  tvas  jfohri's  haptifm  Chrijiian  Iciptlfm  ;  for  notivith' 
Jfanding  luhat  has  been  faid  to  evciJs  th:  natural  meaning  of  the 
facredhijiorian^  it  appears  from  the  firjl  part  of  the  xix.  chap^  of 
tl'e  A£}sy  that  Jelm  did  mt  baptize  as  the  apoflks  did.  We  are 
there  informed,  that  Paul,  fndin^:^  certain  difciples  at  Epheftts,  en- 
quired luhether  they  bad  received  the  Holy  Gho^,fince  they  believed. 
*'  And  they  faid  unto  hi !u,  w.?  have  }2ot  f  mazh  as  heard  ^whether 
there  be  any  Holy  Gl^ofl.^*  Paul  anfii'ercd  as  if  a?nazed.  Whaty 
baptized  ?  and  not  Iward  iwether  there  be  any  Holy  Ghofl  ?  **  f7«- 
to 'Vjhat  then 'VJsre  ye  baptized-  ^nd  they  faid  unto  Johti's  bap' 
tifm."  The  matter  nvas  nsiu  cleared  up,  and  Paul  proceeded  t9 
chferve,  *'  John  verily  baptized  ivith  the  baptifn  of  repentance, 
frying  unto  the  people,  thai  they  fJyo'M  believe  on  hi?n  that  fooiild 
come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Lhrifl  Jefus.  IVhen  they  heard  this, 
ihcy  'were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jefus"  The  mojl' 
natural confiru^ion  of  thefe  nxiords  imports,  that  'when  Paul  had 
fud  this,  and  enlightened  them  tJito  the  knovolcdge  of  Chriji,  they 
•vjtre  baptized  according  to  his  inflitution. 

Bcfides  :  Chriji  fpeaks  of  John  as  not  belonging  to  the  Chrifiiav 
difpenfation,  ivhcn  he  fays  that  "  The  leaf  in  the  kingdam  of  hea- 
•ccn  is  greater  than  he  J*  Av.d  John  fays  viuch  the  fame  of  himfejf. 
♦«  />  vmjl  increafe  ;  hut  I  mufi  decreafe."  That  is.  His  dif- 
fenfation  7nuf  increafe  ;  ntine  decrcafe,  'vihich  could  not  have  been 
true  ifjo^m  ivas  a  Chrifiian  jniv.ijjer.  And  the  corftderation,  that 
John  did  no  miracles,  is  'ariother  evidence  that  his  "Jias  not  the 
Chrifiian  difpeffation,  'which  like  that  ofMofes,  required  to  be  intro^ 
duced  'With  ihefeal  of  miracles. 

Thofe  ivho  contend  that  John  I'ias  a  rninijler  of  the  Chrijiiatr 
iifpeiifation,  endeavour  tofipport  this  opinion,  from  ivhat  is  faid  in 
the  fiif  chapter  of  Mark,  nvhich  begins  'with  thefe  'words,  "  The  be-  ■ 
gijining  cfthe  gofpel  of  Jefus  Chriji  the  Son  of  God,^*  and  immedi- 
ately mentions  the  niiniftry  of  John.  From  this  they 'would  infer,  that 
L'  belonged  to  the  Chrifiian  difpetfition.  But  a  little  attention  'will 
ferve  to  difcover,  that  thefe  'words  are  given,  like  a  title  page,  to 
exprefs  the  general fuljcif  of  the  hook.  And  the  little  that  folloi'.'j 
c-jnccrning  John,  nvas  necejj'ary  to/hjcw  tha  fulfilment  of  the  fcrip' 
tures,  concerning  the.  fore-runner  'jfChrifi,  and  to  give  an  intet- 
Mgihle  account  of  our  L^rd' s  baptifn,  nuhrfe  hiflory  the  evangelrft 
hadtio'v.fst  dmxints'wrlte,-and  thercfr^  does  not  fuggeji  theideai  thai 


95) 

afford  thcleaft  degree  of  probability  that  immerfion  was  prao 
tifed,  and  Tome  of  theni  were  fo  circumilanced,  that  it  is  dif- 
ficult  to  conceive  how  it  was  poffible,  that  it  fliould  be.  The 
fir;]:  inftance  was  on  the  day  of  Pentecoit.     At  nine  o'clock  ia 

yohn  belonged  ta  the  Tte'W  dlfpenfatkn.     To  prove  that    "John  *waf 

a    Chrtfiian  minijlery  and  that  therefore  his  haptlfvi  vjas  ChriJiiaH 

haptifm,  a  pajfagc  is  cited  in  Luke  xvi.    x6.    "  '/"/;<?  lam  and  the 

ptophets  were  until  J'yhn  ;  fince  that  time  the  kingdom   of  heaven. 

is  preached,  and  every   7Kan  prejfvth   into  it."     But  this  does  not 

prove,  that  at  that  tinie^  the  old  difpeifation  gave  way  to  the  ne-iv  ; 

for  it  is  certain  that  John  obeyed  the  old  ritual,  and  that  our  Lord 

himfslf  to  the  day  of  his  crucifixion,  confidered  it  in  full  force  ^  and 

sonforyned  to  it.     But  the  natural  import  of  the  p<^ffage  appears  to 

he  thit,  yohn  'was  a  more  clear  inJlruSIive  preacher,  than  any  ivh» 

•went  before  him  ;,  and  his  -miniftrywas  atteiided  'with  unufiial  fac-. 

Ci'fs.      This  agrees  'with  what  is  f aid  in  the  %%th   verfe  of  the  vil. 

chapter  of  this  evavgelifi.      "  For  I  fay  tmto  you,  among  thofe    that 

are  horn  of 'women ,  there  is  not  a  greater  than  John   the  Baptiji  i 

hut  he   that  is  leaf}  in  the   kingdom   of  God  is  greater  than  he'''* 

Mr.  Calvin,  and  Mr.  PooV s  continuators,  confidered  this  pajfage 

as  meaning,  ^■^  that   among   all  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Tef}a7nent, 

God  raifed  up  none  greater  than  John  ;  but  that  the  leaf  of  thofe 

ihat/hould  preach  the  gofpel  after   Chrift^s    refurre£iion,  Jlwidd  in 

their  doSlrine  he  greater  than  he."      This  foows  that  John  did  not 

belong  to  the  new  difpenfation,  which  is  here  called,    hy  way    of  fii^ 

perior  eminence,  the  kingdom  of  God, — Dr.  Gill,  an  European  Bap- 

tifi  writer,  argues  that  John^s  haptifm  was  the  Chriflian  baptifm^ 

hecaufe  he  required  offuch  as    he  baptized  repentance  for    the  re' 

mifion  of  fins,  as  the  ter7?u  of  their  admijfon  to  it,    and  that  they 

flyoidd  believe  en  him  ih.tt  jhould  come  after  hi?n,  that  is,  on  Chrifl  ; 

us  the  apojiles  required  repentance  and  faith    of  thofe    whom    they 

kc'ptized.     Douhtlifs  John  preached  true  Jpiritual  religion  ;  and  fa 

did  Mofcs  and  the  prophets.      They  preacheu  repentance    and  remif- 

Jkn  of  fins,     ^nd  Mcfss  required  that  the  people  fi^oidd  believe  on 

Chrifi — the  prophet  whom  God   would  raife  up    unto    them  from 

among  their  brethren.     And  the  fmie  gofpel  was  preached  mito 

Abraham.     Repentance  and  remijjijn  of  fins,  ".y/'-f  alfo  fiigjtified  hy 

the  Mofaic  fprinklings,  and  purifications,  and  Chrifi  was  fijadow- 

ed  out  by  every  facrifics.     A?id  the  Jews    were  required  to   attsni 

them,  with  fitch  fpirilual  e>^ercifs,  as  the  terms  of  their  acceptance, 

with  God.  Therefore  thefe  Mofaic  fprinkUngj,  •-.':.•;•;  the  apoftle  calls 

haptifns,  m.zy  as  well  he  called  Chrifihni  hupiff*..  as  'John's,    as  he 

required  no  more  ef  ihofe  '•^.^hzm  he  adn.it led,  ih-^n  M<:fes  did  in  the 


(96) 

the  inorning  the  apofiles  were  preaching,  and  feme  of  the 
Jews  were  heaving  with  folemnity,  and  others  cavilling,  which 
muft  probably  have  taken  up  the  time  till  about  noon.  And 
yet,  after  this,  three  thoufand  made  profeffion  of  their  faith, 
and  were  baptized. — This  was  at  the  rate  of  nolefsthan  eight 
perfons  to  a  minute,  during  the  whole  afternoon.  It  is  dif- 
ficult to  believe  that  all  thefc  were  immerfed,  becaufe  there  is 
no  account  that  they  were  ;  and  becaufe  it  is  difficult  to  coa- 
ceive  how  they  could  find  water  for  this  mode.  The  baths  at 
the  temple,  if  they  v.ere  fuitablefor  the  bufinefs,  could  not  be 
obtained  on  this  feaft  of  the  Jews  :  they  were   wanted   by  the 

covenant  that  he  adnilntjlered  to  the  people-  It  therefore  runaint 
tvident,  not'withjiand'mg  all  thefe  objeclions,  that  "John  did  not  ad'. 
winijler  the  Chrijlian   haptifnu 

3.  Thebaptifviofjohnivas  a  1  tie  peculiar  to  that  ^reat  oc. 
cafion^  and  dijigned  to  purify  the  people  for  the  coming  of  the  Mefiah- 
7 his  is  agreeable  to  the  account  that  John  gave  of  hinfelf  to  the 
priejit  and  levitesj  'v:ho  'were  fent  to  afi  hi?/!,  ivho  he  -was  .•■'  'Johjt 
i.  1  9,  ^c.  he  told  them  that  he  ivas  not  the  Chrifty  nor  Eliast 
nor  that  prophet  ;  hut  the  -voice  of  one  crying  in  the  'wildernefs ,  Make 
Jiraight  the  nuay  of  the  Lord.  They  then  a  fed  'vjhy  he  baptized  ? 
his  atfvjer  implies,  that  it  'was  tofanfiify  the  people  for  the  com- 
ing of  one  far  greater  than  himfif.  "  I  baptize  ix-'ith  'vjater^  but 
ther-  Jlan.ieth  one  ajnongyou,  ivhom  ye  hio'-jj  not  ;  he  it  is,  iy>h* 
coming  afer  me,  is  preferred  before  77ie,  ivhofe  foes  latchet  I  am 
not  nvirthv  to  unhofe."  The  Jeivs  expeSied  the  Meffiah,  and  Jieed' 
ed  no  miracles  to  prove  that  hs  "ivas  coming  :  and  could  at  once  fee, 
that  it  ivas  fuitable  that  his  'wayf?ould  be  prepared  by  a  univerfal 
purification  of  the  people,  1  hey  <vjere  accuftomed  to  purifications  on 
their  religious  occajions,  and  fpecial  folenmities,  as  at  the pajfover, 
pentecof,  the  day  of  atonement ■,  at  their  free-iuill  offerings,  and 
the  people  lucre  fanhified  at  Sinai,  and  on  ail  great  religious  occa- 
finns.  And  "dnhen  they  fou7id  the  def.gn  of  his  baptifm  'was  to  pre- 
pai  e  the  people  for  the  coming  ofChriJl,  nothing  appears  hut  that 
it  IV js  fatisfahory.  Though  indeed  there  ctrofe  a  quefion,  betiveen 
fvnie  of  John's  difcipks  and  the  'Jews,  about  p'^trifying  ;  "which,  by 
the  -way,  fjo'ws  that  on  both  fides  it  fwas  conf.dered  as  a  purifying 
rite,  and  n:t a  gofpel feal,  Jn  this  viciX'  the  minifryofjohn  and 
his  baptifn  appear  to  be  an  exaH  accomplifmcnt  of  that,  'which 
*waif.  retold  of  him  by  the  prophets  Ef.ias  andMalachi.  Ifaiah  xl.  3. 
and  Malachi,  iv.  5.  And  thit  is  the  account  that  he  gives  of  him- 
fif On  the  'whole,  it  appearsthat  his  baptifn  'was  not  an  ancient 
Jcmjifi)  lite,  nor  the  goffel hiiptij'i>>,  but  a  tuatier  peculiar  tc  that 
i'xti  aorJinary    occajhu. 


(  97  } 

pnefls.     And  befides,  the  priefts  would  h^nve   been  litrle  dirpo- 
fed  to  have  lent  them  to  the  apoftles,  to  be  put  to  what  they 
would  have   confidered   an  unhallowed  uie,  in  honor  of  one 
whom  they  had  jult  executed  as  a  blafphcraer.  And  it  is  equal- 
ly difficult  to   conceive,  how  fo  many  could  have  been   im- 
merfed  with  decency,  in  lb  ftiort  a  time,  if  each  o£  the  eleven 
,  apoftles  had  left  the  bufinefs  of  preaching,  and  inftru<ftion,  and 
could  have  found  a  convenient  place  of  water  ;    and   fuitablc 
changes  of  raiment  could  have    been  obtained.     The    account 
is  apparently  inconfiftent  with  this  mode — Befides,   we  never, 
after  the  afcenfion  of  Chrifl:,  read  of  any  difficulty  in    cb<;ai  ning 
water  for  the  purpofe  of  baptifm,  or  of  going  out  to  any  bath, 
ftream  or   fountain  ;  but  the  natural  import  of  the  accounts 
are,  that  whenever  people  believed,  and  profefied   their  belief, 
they  were  baptized  ;  whether  at  j>irufalem,or  at  the    houfe  of 
Cornelius,  of  JuJas  or  of  the  jailor.     And  in  the  inRances  lafl; 
mentioned,  it  appears  very  improbable,   that   immeifion   was 
pradifed.     In  the  inftance  at   the  houfe    of  Corndius,  Peter 
faid,  "  Can  any  man  foi  bid  water,  that    tliefe    ihould   not   be 
baptized."*        This  manner  of  expreffion  fuggeds,  rather  the 
bringing  water  for  baptizing  them  in  the  houfe,  than  their   go- 
ing abroad  to  fome  river  or   fountain  for  the    purpofe.     And 
the  inftance  of  Saul's  baptifm,  at  the  houie   of  Juda?,   is   fiill 
more  inconfiitent  with  the  luppofition    that  he  was  immerfed. 
As  fjon  as  Ananias  adJrcffed  him,    "  Immediately    there  fell 
from  his  eyes,  as  it  had  beenfcaies,  nnd  he  received  ught  ibrtli- 
with,  andarofe,"  all  weak  ashe  was  with  his   diflrefs  of  mind, 
and  failing  three  days,  "  and  was  baptized,  and  when  he   had 
received  meat,  he  was  ilfengthened."f     And  when  the  jailor 
■was  baptized,  it  was  midnight,  and  Paul  and   Jiilas  were  fore 
with  the  ftripes  vvhich  they  had  received  from    the    magiftrates 
of  Philippi ;  and  yet,    at  this  hour,  and  in  this  condition,  he 
took  Paul  and  Sila^,  and  vvaliied  their  ih-ipes,  ynd  was  bapti- 
zed, he  and  rll  his  ftraightway.J     And   the  anfv/er  given  to 
the  fergeants,  and  fent  to  the  magi  Urates  the  next   day,  ff.ows 
that  they  had  not  df.'parted  from  the  prifon,  for   there   woukl 
^ave  been  no  propriety  in  fending  to  them,  to  fetch   them  out 
of  prifon,  if  they  could  have  replied,   Ycu  have  once  been  out 
and  returned  voluntarily  again. 

If  now  we  examine  all  the  examples  of  baptifm   recorded  in 

■  the  New-Te (lament,  we  can  find  none  inconiillent  with  fprirk- 

ling,  but  many,  that  certainly  appear  inconfuteni.  with  immer- 

*  A^s,  X,  47-  4-Ac%,  h:.  i8.         ]:  Ads,  xvi.  25,  kc 


(9S} 

fion  :  and  th'fefcirf?  that  can  be  refonatlj  faid,  rflnS  ht,  thstr 
there  is  greater  reafon  to  believe  that  the  apoRIes  baptized  by 
fprinkling,  than  imm-ifion.  Is  it  not  therefore  a  little  extra- 
ordinary that  our  brethren  ihould,  with  much  confidence aflert* 
that  immerfion  is  exprefsly  pointed  out  in  the  fcriptures,  and 
cite  paifages  for  proof,  in  which  neicher  the  moder  nor  any  cir- 
cumftance  which  neceflarily  determines  it,  is  mentioned  ? 

III.  If  we  were  to  judge  of  the  mode  of  baptifm,  by  the 
things  figniliedby  it  ;  which  indeed  is  but  an  arbitrary  way  of 
judging,  for  baptifm  is  nMdefigned  to  ihow  the  mode  of  the 
Spirit's  operation,  but  the  effeds  produced;  yet  even  this,, 
which  our  brethren  frequently  urge,  will  not  decide  that  im- 
merfion is  ehe  only  \-alid  mode.  Regeneration  is  one  thing 
frgnified  by  baptiim  ;  and  this  is  wrought,  not  by  an  immer- 
fion of  thefubjedsof  it  into  the  Holy  Ghoft,  but  is  expreifed,. 
hy  pouring  it  out  Upon  them.  And  hence  God  fays,  "  I  will 
pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flefh."*  Baptifm  figniftes  fanfti- 
fication.  And  therefore  God  fays,  «  I  will  fpriitkle  cle-rfn  wa- 
ter upon  you,  and  ye  fhuU  be  clean,"  +  It  may  alfo  denote 
pardon  and  juftiiication,  which  the  apoille  expreifcs  by  '■^The 
fprinklir.g  of  the  blood  of  Chri(l:."i|  This  alfo,  as  well  as  cir- 
cumcifiort,  figniftes  death  unco  fin.  And  hence  v/e  ready  that 
the  faints,  "  Are  circumcifed  with  the  circamcifion  made  with- 
out hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  fins  of  the  fiefh,  hy 
the  circumcifion  of  Chrifl;  :  buried  with  him  in  br^ptilrn-"^ 
So  that,  even  in  this  arbitrary  and  uncertain  way  of  determin- 
ing the  mode,  fprlnkling  and  pouring  are  at  leaft  as  ttronglj 
indicated,  jvs  imnserfion. 

iV.  That  immerfion  is  not  the  only  valid  mode  -of  admin- 

*  Joel,  ii.  28.         X  Ezek.  xxxvi.  2 5.  i|  i  Pet.  i.  2. 

$  Col.  ii.  12-  Circumcifion  is  no  more  evihlematical  of  death 
than  fpr inkling  is.,  and  both  evidently,  in  this  place,  refpeS}  regsns' 
ration,  luhich  is  made  'without  bands,  and  conftjls  in  puttijig  orf  the 
body  cf  the  fins  cftheflfjj,  and  being  quickened  and  j- a  if  d  thro'  the 
faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  to  neijjnfs  of  life,  even  as  Chrifl  a- 
rofe  from  the  dead, 'with  a  fpiritual  body.  And  no  one  can  confiji- 
ently  [tippofe  that  circumcifion  or  baptifm  is  here  ijit ended,  unlefs 
they  believe  that  thefe  external  rites  are  regeneration  itjilf :  and 
therefore  regeneration  is  the  burial  hsrs  ii.-f  ended.  Be  fides,  on  the 
fttpp'ftion  that  baptifm  is  infituied  to  coniviemorate  the  death  of 
Chrijit  it  tx.ullfllonu,  that  it  has  precife/y  the  fame  fgnifcation  as 
the  L'ird'r.S upper  ;  and  there  is  no  trdiiiance  left  to  reprefent  the 
<iK,ork  of  the  Spiirt,  nuhich  is  contrary  b-Ah  to  the  terxir  oj  the  Scrip- 
Uir:,s,  and  alfo  to  tlic  '■iVritings  <foiir  baptift  brethren  on  tQhstfu'^^t. 


(99) 

iflerlng  this 'ordinance,  fince  it  is  no  where  enjcine^,  or  eveii 
mentioned  in  the  fcriptures,  may  with  propriety  be  argued 
from  the  inconvenieucy  of  it.  Were  there  a  pofuive  com- 
mand refpeding  the  mode,  as  there  wis  refpeding  all  the  cir- 
cumdiances  of"  the  ancient  Jewilh  rites,  no  argument  concern- 
ing its  inconvenience  would  have  any  weight  ;  but  where  the 
mode  is  undetermined  in  the  ibriptures,  and  believes  in  what- 
ever country,  feafon,  and  llate  of  health,  are  the  fubjecls  of  it, 
t>y  exprelb  command,  this  argunnent  appears  to  me  reafonable, 
W;;ighty,  and  conclufive.  Immeriion  is  on  all  occafions  in- 
convenient, and  efpt-cially  in  cold  feafors,  in  our  northern 
countries.  It  is  impollible  in  cafes  of  licknefs,  and  on  many 
other  occafions  highly  dangtrous.  And  in  fome  countries 
and  feafons  it  would  be  to  all  the  fubjeds  of  it,  a  greater  fuf- 
fering.  than  circunicifion  was  to  the  Jews.  We  have  there- 
fore no  right  to  conclude,  without  fome  evidence,  that  Chrift, 
who  iaftituted  baptifm  for  all  believers,  in  whatever  circum- 
ftances,  intended  th;it  it  (Iiould  be  adminiftered  by  immerfion, 
much  lefs  that  he  limited  it  to  this  mode.  Aj[iufion  or  fprink- 
ling,  arid  that  only,  can  be  adminiftered  in  every  cafe,  and  at 
all  feafons,  where  this  ordinance  is  direded. 

V.  It  is  alfo  an  objedion  of  fome  weight  againfl  immer- 
fion, that  it  is  found  too  inconvenient  to  be  generally  adminif- 
tered in  the  fanctuary,  where  all  the  ordinances  of  Chrift:  ought 
to  be  ordinarily  attended.  I  am  aware  that  it  will  be  faid, 
that  we  have  no  account,  that  the  apoftles  ever  baptized  in 
any  houfe  defigned  for  public  worfliip.  But  a  fufficient  rea- 
fon  may  be  alligne'^  :  they  had  none  :  and  fo  baptized  in  pri- 
vate houfes,  and  in  the  open  air,  as  occafions  required.  In 
the  fame  manner,  Noah,  Abraham,  and  the  ancient  Patriarchs 
offered  to  God  acceptable  facrifices,  wherever  it  was  conve- 
nient, and  the  Jews  were  direded  to  eat  the  paffover  at  their 
own  houfes,  until  a  fanduary  was  built.  But  when  this  was 
built,  God  exprefsly  commanded,  that  no  facrifice  fliould  be 
ofli;red,but  at  the  fanduary,  and  no  paffover  eaten,  but  at  Je- 
rufalem,  the  holy  city.  And  all  Ifrael,  on  fuch  occafions, 
■were  required  co  go  up  with  their  facrifices  to  that  one  place. 
Circumcifion,  (doubtlefs  becaufe  it  was  impoffiblc  to  bring 
their  feeble  babe  from  all  parts  to  the  temple)  was  the  only  or- 
dinance, that  they  were  permitted  to  attend  in  their  own  hou- 
fes. Tiiis  I  conceive  is  a  fufficient  indication,  that  it  is  the 
will  of  God,  that  in  ordinary  cafes,  where  the  church  can 
h:\vc  the  privilege  of  a  fanduary,  his  ordinances  ftioirid  be  at- 
tended in  liis  houfe  :  and  therefore  no  mode  of  baptifm  ought 
to  be  uiiid,  which  is  too  inconvenient  :o  be  commouly  admin- 


(loo) 

iftered  in.the  fan^uary,*  The  only  feafible  way  that  re- 
inains,  is  by  fprinkling,  or  pouring  on  water.  •  And  that  tlils 
laa  is  the  proper  mode,  is  I  think  evident  from  what  has  beea 
already  faid,  and  is  corroborated  by  the  confideration,  that 
baptifm  is  the  feal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  in  fprinkhn<T 
it  is,  and  ought  always  to  be  applied,  as  God's  feal  upon  th* 
forehead,  the  place  where  we  are  exprefsly  told,  that  God  af- 
fixes his  feal.  «  And  I  faw  another  angel  afcending  from  the 
eaft,  haying  the  feal  of  the  living  God  :  And  he  cried  with  » 
loud  voice  to  the  four  angels  to  whom  it  was  given  to  hurt 
the  earth,  and  the  fea  ;  faying,  hurt  not  the  earth,  neither 
the  fea,  nor  the  trees,  till  we  have  fealcd  the  fervants  of  our 
God  in  their  foreheads."^ 

Thus  Sir,  I  have  fliowed  that  the  word  tranflated  baptifm, 
■when  the  ordinance  in  queftion  is  not  intended,  never  deci- 
dedly means  immerfion  ;  but  ufually  if  not  always  afFufion 
V.  hen  water  is  concerned— that  the  apoftle  exprefsly  calls  the 
Mofaic  fprinkhngs  baptifms— that  the  fcriptures  afford  no 
precept  or  example  for  immerfion,  but  many  examples  that 
appear  inconfiftent  with  it— that  if  we  were  to  judge  of  the 
mode  of  baptifm,  by  the  things  fignified  by  it,  even  this  would 
not  decide  in  favor  of  immerfion— that  immerfion  cannot  be 
adminiftered  to  all  believers,  in  all  cafes  and  feafons,  as  the 
diredions  concerning  baptifm  exprefsly  require — and  that  it  is 
found  too  inconvenient  to  be  ufually  attended  in  the  houfe  of 
God,  where  all  his  ordin-inces  ought  to  be  ordinarily  admin- 
illered.  In  doing  this,  I  have  proved  that  immerfion  is  not 
efenfia/  to  the  validity  of  Chriftian  baptifm  :  I  have  done 
rnore  :  I  have  proved  that  it  is  not  the  proj>gr  mode  of  admin- 
irtration  ;  although  I  do  not  confider  the  mode  eflential  to  its 
validity  ;  but  am  perfuaded  that  any  decent  mode  of  applying 
water  to  the  body,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghol^,  is  valid.  And  I  heartily  lament,  that 
there  are  any  Chrifcians,  and  Chriftian  churches,  for  fuch  1  ef- 
teem  many  of  our  baptirts  brethren  to  be,  who  on  this  account, 
withdraw  communion  from,  and  virtually  excommunicate  fo 
many  of  the  Churches,  whom  Chriil  evidently  owns,  by  the  out- 
pouring of  his  Spirit  upon  them. 

I  am,  &c. 

JONATHAN  MILLER. 
Weft-Britain,  January  i,  1800. 


7^7//  aiuare,  that  fiffje  BaptiJ}  churchcj  have  founts,  ana 
hi  their  hoiifis  of  pMlc  'VJorjlAi'  ;  hut  f^h  h  found  too  . 
sntfr  general pra^i.'i.  §  Rsv.  7,  2,  &c. 


^dlM  'WmM 


■4y^^.*^"'' 


